🌲UNDER YOUR TREE: A GIFT 🎁 FROM “SIR JEFFREY” CHASE OF THE ROUND TABLE 🛡️— “Asylum In The Time Of M-R-M-S-“ — “One reaction to this decision would have involved explaining that the Board’s illogical holding was reached not by error but by design, in furtherance of a restrictionist agenda; asking why the current administration hasn’t changed the makeup of a BIA specifically constructed to do exactly that . . . . But such talk would be of no practical help. What those representing asylum applicants and those in government deciding those claims need now is a path to negotiate this latest obstacle and still reach the correct result.”

Four Horsemen — “Sir Jeffrey” tells us how to use “the law as a sword” to defend against the BIA’s anti-asylum precedent in M-R-M-S-. Don’t let yourself and your clients be “shredded and trampled” by BIA panels wielding deadly, hyper-technical, counterintuitive, overly restrictive asylum precedents designed to promote and support “any reason to deny!”
Albrecht Dürer, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

https://www.jeffreyschase.com/blog/2023/12/24/asylum-in-the-time-of-m-r-m-s-2

JEFFREY S. CHASE | OPINIONS/ANALYSIS ON IMMIGRATION LAW

Blog Archive Press and Interviews Calendar Contact

Asylum in the Time of M-R-M-S-

Introduction

In 2017, while Matter of L-E-A-1 was pending before the BIA, I attended an immigration law conference at which Professor Jon Bauer posed the following “thought experiment”:

A Nazi official threatens to kill all the Jews in a town unless a Jewish criminal, who has committed several robberies and murders and is suspected to be hiding in the area, is turned over to the authorities or turns himself in.

Is this persecution on account of religion?

The answer is obviously yes. Those in the town find themselves at risk of persecution on account of their religion. It would seem impossible for anyone possessing knowledge of our asylum laws (or just plain common sense) not to understand this.

However, with its decision in Matter of M-R-M-S-,2 the Board of Immigration Appeals has managed to create a test for nexus that would lead to the opposite conclusion.

One reaction to this decision would have involved explaining that the Board’s illogical holding was reached not by error but by design, in furtherance of a restrictionist agenda; asking why the current administration hasn’t changed the makeup of a BIA specifically constructed to do exactly that; bemoaning the fact that regulations that are more than two years overdue could have prevented this; and suggesting that the correct course of action for the Attorney General to take at this point would be to vacate this decision in anticipation of said forthcoming rulemaking.

But such talk would be of no practical help. What those representing asylum applicants and those in government deciding those claims need now is a path to negotiate this latest obstacle and still reach the correct result. I hope that some of what follows will prove helpful, and that it will encourage further thought and conversation on this topic.

Legal Strategies in light of M-R-M-S-

Distinguish your case based on the facts

In M-R-M-S-, the Board chose for its precedent a case surprisingly devoid of facts. The entire factual summary consists of three sentences. A criminal cartel forced the respondents off of their land “because the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose. The cartel killed the lead respondent’s grandson for unknown reasons, although the respondents believe it was related to the cartel’s efforts to obtain their land. The cartel also forced other families off of land in the same area.”

This summary makes no mention of how family membership might have been a factor; it only says the cartel wanted the land for its own unstated purpose. It can be argued that the decision simply establishes that cases asserting mixed motives need to present more than one motive.

Instead, the Board leaped to a much broader and more damaging conclusion that wasn’t even suggested by the above facts, namely, that targeting members of a family for purposes of achieving another non-protected ground renders the family membership “incidental or subordinate,” and thus lacking the nexus required for asylum or withholding of removal protection.

Tip: Distinguish your facts from those in M-R-M-S-.

Emphasize how family or another protected ground played a significant role in the applicant being targeted for persecution. Note that merely mentioning that other family members were also harmed does not in itself establish a nexus on account of family membership.

Tip: Employ the Board’s test in Matter of S-P- when applicable.

In Matter of S-P-,3, the BIA looked at when government prosecution might actually be persecution on account of political opinion. And one of the warning signs it mentioned occurs when the punishment is clearly out of proportion to the conduct in question. So under S-P-’s test, if someone charged with jaywalking is detained at length and beaten by the police, the reasonable conclusion is that the punishment wasn’t actually about the jaywalking.

One can transpose this approach to the particular social group consisting of family by arguing that the same logic applies to gang punishment for failing to pay extortion. Particularly where the amount being sought by the gang or cartel isn’t that much, when the response to the failure to pay is to threaten to severely harm or kill a family member of the target of extortion, a reasonable conclusion under S-P- would be that this isn’t simply about the money. A gang or cartel can seek a financial goal, but at the same time can develop an animosity against a family resistant to its demands.

Moving on, the use of the word “subordinate” in the Board’s most recent holding is of interest, for the following reasons.

The fall and rise of the Board’s “subordination” criteria for nexus

In its first attempt to define the “one central reason” language adopted by Congress in 2005, the BIA in Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-4 recognized in the last paragraph of page 212 of that decision that the standard did not require a central reason to be “dominant” in relation to other reasons for persecution. In fact, in a footnote, the Board further explained: “The problem in classifying one motive as “dominant” or “central” is that it renders all other motives, regardless of their significance to the case, secondary and therefore ultimately irrelevant.”

Yet two pages after rejecting a hierarchical approach to nexus, the Board defined the new standard as a reason that “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm.”

The problem with the inclusion of the word “subordinate” is obvious. It means that once an adjudicator finds a reason they consider to be the dominant one, their inquiry is over, and, as the Board itself warned, all other motives become irrelevant.

The Third Circuit, in Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General of U.S.5 rejected the Board’s standard for precisely this reason: its use of the word “subordinate” was found by the court to be no different from the “dominance” test that the Board purported to reject. To quote the Third Circuit:

This plain language indicates that a persecutor may have more than one central motivation for his or her actions; whether one of those central reasons is more or less important than another is irrelevant. The BIA acknowledged this in refusing to define a central reason within the meaning of § 208 as a “dominant” motivation. Id. at 212. The same logic forbids an interpretation that would impose a mirror image of the rejected “dominance” test: the requirement that a protected ground, even if a “central” reason for persecution, not be subordinate to any other reason.

Interestingly, following this rejection of its standard, the BIA reacted by dropping the word “subordinate” from its stated legal standard. For example, in a subsequent (2011) precedent, Matter of N-M-, 6 the Board cited its earlier decision in J-B-N & S-M-, but made no mention of that case’s incidental/tangential/superficial/subordinate language at all. Rather, the Board said:

In cases arising under the REAL ID Act, the “protected ground cannot play a minor role in the alien’s past mistreatment or fears of future mistreatment.” Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. Instead, a [noncitizen] must demonstrate that the persecutor would not have harmed the applicant if the protected trait did not exist.7

The italicized sentence states a “but for” causation standard which we will discuss further below. In fact, it seems to be an identical standard to that employed by the Fourth Circuit, whose approach the Board criticized in M-R-M-S-.

Years later, in the aforementioned Matter of L-E-A- (decided in 2017), the Board amended its earlier language in J-B-N- & S-N- as follows:

The protected trait, in this case membership in the respondent’s father’s family, “cannot play a minor role”—that is, “it cannot be incidental [or] tangential . . . to another reason for harm.”8

Notice how an ellipsis is used to drop the word “subordinate” from the definition. So the Board seemed to understand for quite some time that the legal standard it enunciated could not include a dominance test (although it would then proceed to apply a dominance test in practice, as numerous circuit court reversals have demonstrated)

But now, without explaining the reason for its sudden reversal, the Board has in M-R-M-S- reverted to its original flawed standard. Here’s the quote:

A protected ground that is “incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm” does not satisfy this standard. Matter of J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 214. 9

Furthermore, the Board chose to reassert its dominance requirement in a case in which the facts mention only one reason, and a vague one at that – that “the cartel wanted the land for its own purpose.” A dominance test is meaningless where there is only one reason asserted for the persecution.

But what if the revived dominance test were to be applied to Prof. Bauer’s hypothetical? Presumably, the Board would find the dominant reason for the threatened persecution to be the Nazi authorities’ desire to bring a criminal to justice. The targeting of the suspect’s coreligionists as a means to achieve that primary objective would, under the Board’s test, become “subordinate” to that goal, and would thus render the murdering of the town’s Jews “irrelevant.” Applying the Board’s “logic,” religion would not be one central reason for the murders.

As the above example demonstrates, the Board’s test will lead to truly absurd results. It is therefore not surprising that the Board’s standard is at odds with the approach of most circuits.

The reinstituted dominance test conflicts with most circuit case law

Tip: Argue the inapplicability of M-R-M-S- where it conflicts with prevailing circuit law.

While not exhaustive, the following selection of circuit court case law should provide a basis for arguing that the Board’s standard for determining nexus is inapplicable in many courts located within the jurisdiction of those circuits

Third Circuit

It should certainly be argued in cases arising within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit that the new decision’s reiteration of the exact legal standard that was rejected in Ndayshimiye (as discussed above) means that M-R-M-S- cannot be followed. The BIA actually recognized the conflict in footnote 6 of its decision, stating:

Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit generally agrees with the Board’s interpretation of the “one central reason” standard, it has rejected the requirement that a protected ground not be subordinate to another reason for harm. See Ndayshimiye v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 557 F.3d 124, 130–31 (3d Cir. 2009).

The Board thus seemed to acknowledge by way of this footnote the inapplicability of its decision in the Third Circuit.

Fourth Circuit

The BIA in M-R-M-S- does not contest that its requirement for nexus is at odds with the long-established “but for” standard employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch,10 the Fourth Circuit explained that even though a gang threatened the petitioner for the purpose of recruiting her son, the applicant was nevertheless targeted “on account of” her family ties because her “relationship to her son is why she, and not another person, was threatened….” The court has repeated the “why she, and not another person” test in other decisions.11

The Fourth Circuit has more recently pointed to an oft-repeated error of the Board in “incorrectly focusing on why the gang targeted Petitioner’s family, rather than on why they targeted Petitioner herself.”12 In another published decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that “‘once the right question is asked’ — that is, why was Petitioner being targeted — the conclusion is quite clear: ‘whatever [the gang]’s motives for targeting [her] family, [Petitioner herself] was targeted because of [her] membership in that family.’”13

The fact that the Board in M-R-M-S- states that it prefers the approach of the Tenth Circuit, which “does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach,”14 does not change the fact that the standard enunciated in the above-captioned Fourth Circuit decisions remains the standard for nexus applicable in Immigration Courts and Asylum Offices located within that circuit’s jurisdiction.

Cases being heard remotely by an IJ located within the Fourth Circuit

A decision of the Fourth Circuit issued last year provides a strong argument for applying that court’s nexus standard in lieu of the M-R-M-S- approach in cases geographically outside of the circuit’s jurisdiction which are heard remotely by Immigration Judges sitting in Virginia, Maryland, or North Carolina.

In Herrera-Alcala v. Garland 15, the Fourth Circuit held that under a plain reading of the statute, jurisdiction is determined by the geographic location of the immigration judge at the time the judge completed the proceedings.

The BIA subsequently issued a conflicting precedential opinion, Matter of Garcia.16 But as the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Herrera-Alcala was based on its clear reading of the statutory language, the lack of a finding of statutory ambiguity would preclude deference to the Board’s view under either Chevron or Brand X.

In cases in which the Immigration Judge is sitting within the Fourth Circuit while the respondent is appearing in an immigration court elsewhere, the argument should be made that Fourth Circuit case law should apply. Claims constructed using Fourth Circuit precedent should be presented below, as in case the claim is denied by the agency, the applicant will ultimately be able to seek review before the Fourth Circuit.

Cases arising under the jurisdiction of other circuits

Fifth Circuit

Outside of the obvious examples of the Third and Fourth Circuits, be highly aware of the case law of the prevailing circuit regarding nexus. Most circuits have rejected the Board’s approach to some degree. Furthermore, the BIA misrepresented the holdings in some of the circuit decisions it cited in M-R-M-S-, a point that should be brought to the attention of judges or asylum officers.

The Fifth Circuit provides us with an example. In M-R-M-S-, the BIA cited the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Guevara-Fabian v. Garland17 as an example of a court employing an analysis of nexus consistent with its own approach.18 However, the court in Guevara-Fabian simply found that there was substantial evidence that the petitioner was targeted “because she owned a profitable business,” and not due to her family membership. This is quite different from the Board’s holding that being targeted due to one’s family membership is insufficient to establish a nexus where such family-based targeting is used as a means to achieving another non-protected goal.

Furthermore, four days after the issuance of M-R-M-S-, the Fifth Circuit published its decision in Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland.19 The facts in that case did not involve a family-based particular social group, but in addressing the subject of nexus, the court’s opinion rejected the agency’s general approach of rejecting all but the dominant reason for persecution.

Specifically, the Fifth Circuit found that in concluding threats by MS-13 were motivated “by criminal intent, personal vendettas, or monetary gain, which do not establish the required nexus,” the BIA disregarded that the petitioner “needed only to present ‘some particularized connection between the feared persecution’ and the protected ground in which his application for relief relies.” The court then referenced an earlier decision in which it had rejected the Board’s employment of an “either-or” approach to nexus in a mixed motive case, and said that the Board had acted similarly here by suggesting that Argueta was targeted for economic reasons “instead” of for a protected ground.20

So in cases arising in the Fifth Circuit, it should be argued that Guevara-Fabian did not support the Board’s approach in M-R-M-S-, as it was distinguishable on its facts, and that the court’s subsequent rejection in Argueta-Hernandez of the type of dominance approach and “either-or” test employed in M-R-M-S- puts the Board’s view of nexus in conflict with circuit law.

Sixth Circuit

On December 8 (i.e. 7 days after the publication of M-R-M-S-), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland 21. In that case, the petitioner, who suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband, and, following his death, at the hands of his mother, claimed persecution on account of particular social groups which included “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen in domestic relationships who are unable to leave,” and “Guatemalan Chuj [w]omen who are viewed as property by virtue of their positions within a domestic relationship.” But the IJ found, and the Board affirmed, that the abuser acted based on a personal vendetta, and therefore found no nexus to a particular social group.

As the record contained ample evidence that “cultural expectations dictated that a Guatemalan Chuj woman in her position—both viewed as property and unable to leave by virtue of her domestic relationship—must stay with her in-laws and have nowhere else to go,” the Sixth Circuit determined there was “sufficient evidence for the BIA to conclude that Sebastian-Sebastian’s membership in these groups ‘underlay[s] all of [her persecutors’] actions.’”22 The court thus concluded that the Board’s failure to consider whether, in light of the above, the personal motives and particular social group membership were “inextricably intertwined” constituted reversible error.

The Sixth Circuit thus held (post-M-R-M-S-) that even where the primary reason for the persecution is a non-protected one (in this case, personal animosity), the fact that membership in a particular social group put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way is sufficient to render it sufficiently intertwined to satisfy the “one central reason” test. I believe a strong argument can be made that applying this approach to a family-based PSG would require a finding that even if the ultimate motive is extortion, if family membership is what put and kept the asylum applicant in harm’s way, there is sufficient nexus.

Seventh Circuit

In Gonzalez Ruano v. Barr,23 the Seventh Circuit explicitly rejected an approach essentially the same to that underlying the Board’s decision in M-R-M-S-. The petitioner suffered persecution by a criminal cartel whose leader viewed the petitioner’s wife as “property” that he sought to “possess.” The petitioner thus argued that his familial relationship to his wife was at least one central reason for his persecution.

On review, the Seventh Circuit specifically rejected the government’s argument that the persecution of the petitioner “was simply a ‘means to an end,’ making [the petitioner]’s relationship to his wife incidental.”24 The court found support in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, adopting the Fourth Circuit’s test under which a nexus exists because the petitioner’s “relationship to his wife was the reason he, and not someone else, was targeted.”25

As the Seventh Circuit is in accord with the Fourth Circuit’s test that specifically rejects the Board’s approach to nexus (a conflict readily admitted by the Board in M-R-M-S-), the Board’s nexus standard is necessarily inapplicable in cases in which Seventh Circuit case law applies. It should be emphasized that the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez-Avalos which the Seventh Circuit positively cites is the specific decision mentioned by the Board in M-R-M-S- as an example of how the Fourth Circuit’s approach differs from its own.26

Eleventh Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit in Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.27 also applied a “but for” approach to nexus in a case involving family, determining that the persecutor’s monetary motivation did not render the petitioner’s family membership merely incidental where a criminal cartel targeted the petitioner because his father-in-law owed the cartel money. This is the exact scenario the Board rejected in M-R-M-S-, in which a family member is targeted as a means to a monetary end.

However, exactly as the Fourth Circuit had done in Hernandez-Avalos, the Eleventh Circuit stated that “In Mr. Perez-Sanchez’s case, it is impossible to disentangle his relationship to his father-in-law from the Gulf Cartel’s pecuniary motives: they are two sides of the same coin.” The court concluded that “the family relationship was one central reason, if not the central reason, for the harm.”28

Thus, the M-R-M-S- standard is at odds with Eleventh Circuit case law as well.

Ninth and Second Circuits

The approach of these two circuits relates to the “but-for” standard. The Ninth Circuit applies a “but-for cause” test in determining nexus. As that court recently noted, to satisfy that standard, an asylum applicant “must first show that ‘the persecutor would not have harmed [her] if such motive did not exist,’… that is, but-for cause, see But-for Cause, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The cause without which the event could not have occurred.”).29

Interestingly, in M-R-M-S-, the BIA quoted this but-for cause language from Parussimova without mentioning that the standard was in conflict with its own.30

It should therefore be argued in cases arising in the Ninth Circuit that applying that court’s “but-for cause” test would lead to a quite different result than the standard enunciated in M-R-M-S-.

The Second Circuit’s standard is less clear, but the court seems to view the “one central reason” requirement an even lower bar for establishing nexus than a but-for cause test. In Quituizaca v. Garland,31 the court noted the need to predict future persecution in withholding of removal claims, as opposed to other areas of law that employ a but-for causation test to past actions only. The court noted that where an adverse action has already occurred, there is an implication that “whatever evidence to establish but-for causation or refute it exists too.”

By contrast, the court noted that because of the predictive nature of future persecution in withholding claims, “[a] but-for standard in this context would seemingly require the applicant have insight into the motivations of the hypothetical future persecutor that sufficiently removes any doubt that the persecutor would be motivated by anything else,” adding that “[a]t a minimum, the proof that can be marshalled to rectify past conduct appears to us distinct from that which would be needed to establish a persecutor’s potential future conduct.”

While the Quituizaca decision is not even mentioned in M-R-M-S-, the Board does reference another Second Circuit case, Garcia-Aranda v. Garland,32 but essentially misrepresents that decision’s holding. In Garcia-Aranda, the facts established that although family members had also been harmed, the petitioners were targeted for persecution because of their own perceived wealth. Whether or not they were related to others who suffered harm would not change the outcome. Thus, in Garcia-Aranda, the court did not address, much less reject, the proposition that no nexus is established under a Hernandez-Avalos type of fact pattern.

A quick note regarding the Tenth Circuit

M-R-M-S- arose within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, and the Board lauded that court’s decision in Orellana-Recinos v. Garland33 as setting forth its preferred standard for nexus.34

It is worth noting that in Orellana-Recinos, “Petitioners did not challenge, or even cite, Matter of L-E-A- in their brief to this court. And at oral argument they cited it as authority. As previously noted, they dispute only the BIA’s factual findings in their case, not the legal framework it applied.”35

What about the standard applied in discrimination cases?

The Supreme Court recently addressed the question of nexus outside of the asylum context in Bostock v. Clayton County,36 a case involving employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court explained in Bostock that the statutory term in question, “because of,” carries the same legal meaning as “on account of,” (i.e. the standard used in asylum cases).

The Court continued that the standard requires a court to apply the “simple” and “traditional” “but-for” test. As the Court explained, “a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.”37

The Court recognized that the “but-for” standard is a “sweeping” one, acknowledging that “[o]ften, events have multiple but-for causes.” The Court further observed that “[w]hen it comes to Title VII, the adoption of the traditional but-for causation standard means a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment decision.”38

This leads to the following question: if “on account of” is not a term specific to asylum, and if the Supreme Court has told us that there is a simple and traditional test for “on account of” that is none other than the “but-for” test being applied by several circuits as described above, can the BIA simply ignore this in creating its own definition for the term “on account of” applicable to asylum claims? M-R-M-S- makes no mention of Bostock. If the Board doesn’t believe that case to be applicable, why not explain its reasoning for reaching that conclusion?

Tip: There is thus an argument to be made in all jurisdictions that the Supreme Court’s standard in Bostock should be the prevailing one.

I have discussed Bostock and offered my views on its applicability to asylum in more detail here.

Emphasize other BIA precedents

Even in the absence of conflicting circuit or Supreme Court case law, an Immigration Judge or asylum officer is left to sort through the several BIA precedents mentioned above. Matter of S-P- (which has not been overruled) did not conclude that because an asylum applicant faced criminal prosecution, there was nothing further to consider. Instead, the Board in that case set forth a test requiring adjudicators to continue their inquiry, taking into account circumstantial evidence and applying common sense to see if another motive for the persecution might be inferred from the facts of record.

As noted above, Matter of N-M- set out a “but-for” standard that seems identical to the one employed by the Fourth Circuit. And even Matter of L-E-A- dropped the word “subordinate,” and thus the application of the dominance test, from its stated legal standard.

Tip: Note that these other BIA precedents remain binding as precedent.

These other cases should therefore be cited and explained, and the degree to which they conflict with M-R-M-S- should be emphasized. It can be argued that M-R-M-S-’s applicability should be limited to cases in which family members are merely mentioned in passing, without further elucidation from the record as to why family membership might have served as a reason for past or future persecution.

Conclusion

As the above hopefully demonstrates, there are plenty of bases to challenge the Board’s recent decision. In M-R-M-S-, the Board presented an approach to nexus that is at odds with the case law of the majority of circuits. The Board mischaracterized the holdings in a number of circuit court decisions, championed a decision of the Tenth Circuit in which the Board’s standard was conceded and thus not in dispute before that court, and completely ignored the Supreme Court’s analysis of the “on account of” standard without explaining why what the Court termed the traditional standard for nexus was distinguishable in the asylum context.

To reiterate, the proper thing for the Attorney General to do at this point is to certify the decision to himself, and vacate it pending anticipated rulemaking. In the meantime, it is hoped that some of the above points will receive serious consideration from asylum officers, Immigration Judges, ICE attorneys, and federal appellate courts.

Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2023. All rights reserved.

Notes:

27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2017).

28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023).

21 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 1996).

25 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2007).

557 F.3d 124, 129-30 (3rd Cir., 2009).

25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011).

Id. at 531 (emphasis added).

Matter of L-E-A-, supra at 44.

Matter of M-R-M-S-, supra at 759 (emphasis added).

784 F.3d 944, 950 (4th Cir. 2015).

See, e.g., Alvarez-Lagos v. Barr, 927 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2019); Cruz v. Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 129 (4th Cir. 2017).

Perez Vasquez v. Garland, 4 F.4th 213 , 222 (4th Cir. 2021).

Hernandez-Cartagena v. Barr, 977 F.3d 316, 322 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 451, 459 (4th Cir. 2018)).

M-R-M-S-, supra at 761.

39 F.4th 233 (4th Cir. 2022).

28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023).

51 F.4th 647, 648 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam).

M-R-M-S-, supra at 760.

No. 22-60307 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023).

Id., slip op. at 16-17 (citing Rivas-Martinez v. I.N.S., 997 F.2d 1143, 1145, 1147-48 (5th Cir. 1993) (remanding to BIA for consideration of mixed motives).

No. 23-3059 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023).

Id., slip op. at 22 (quoting Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, 585 F.3d 980, 998 (6th Cir. 2009).

922 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2019).

Id. at 355-56.

Id. at 356.

See M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating that the Tenth Circuit does not agree with the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Hernandez-Avalos, and adding its opinion that the Tenth Circuit’s is the proper approach).

935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019).

Id. at 1158-59.

Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland, 993 F.3d 743, 751 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009).

See M-R-M-S-, supra at 762.

52 F.4th 103, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2022).

53 F.4th 752, 758 (2d Cir. 2022).

993 F.3d 851 (10th Cir. 2021).

M-R-M-S-, supra at 761 (stating “In our view, the Tenth Circuit’s approach is the proper way to analyze whether membership in a family-based particular social group is one central reason for harm.

Id. at 857.

140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).

Id. at 1739.

Id.

DECEMBER 24, 2023

NEXT

Expert Guidance from the First Circuit

ARCHIVE

Blog | Archive | Press and Interviews | Calendar | Contact

Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates.

SIGN UP

We respect your privacy.

Jeffrey S. Chase is an immigration lawyer in New York City. Jeffrey is a former Immigration Judge and Senior Legal Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals.He is the founder of the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, which was awarded AILA’s 2019 Advocacy Award.Jeffrey is also a past recipient of AILA’s Pro Bono Award.He sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Deportation Defense Attorneys, and Central American Legal Assistance.

Reprinted by permission.

******************************

It’s very satisfying to see Jeffrey’s positive use of Matter of S-P-, a “Schmidt era” precedent in which I joined and which remains good law despite the current BIA’s often ignoring or misapplying it. It’s also a great example of the useful guidance flowing from “positive precedents” — those illustrating and promoting proper asylum grants — as opposed to the overwhelmingly negative tenor of today’s unduly restrictive BIA asylum precedents.

As many of us often say, justice for asylum seekers and other migrants shouldn’t be this difficult in Garland’s courts. See also https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/04/☠%EF%B8%8F🤯-bia-trashes-normal-legal-rules-of-causation-jettisons-4th-cir-precedent-to-deny-family-based-psg-case-the-latest-anti-asylum-znger-from-falls-church-famil/.

Even while the BIA tortures asylum law to make it more difficult to qualify, authorities in other “UN Convention nations” are moving in the opposite direction. For example, Switzerland recently joined Finland, Sweden, and Denmark in automatically granting asylum to Afghan women. See, e.g., https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/12/19/switzerland-becomes-fourth-country-to-automatically-grant-asylum-to-afghan-women/.

This approach is far more consistent with the Supreme Court’s generous guidance in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA’s own initial implementation of that standard in Matter of Mogharrabi, both of which are routinely ignored at EOIR today. (Indeed, if someone with the exact same facts as Mogharrabi applied today, it’s highly likely that the BIA would invent a host of bogus reasons to send him packing!) It’s also a much more practical approach that can actually “streamline” the granting of more “first instance” cases by the Asylum Office, greater consistency, and lessening the need for petitions for review and “Circuit specific” strategies.

While there is no “silver bullet” that will eliminate overnight a backlog built over years of neglect, active mismanagement, and poor performance at EOIR and DOJ, a new, functional, well-respected BIA of asylum expert judges unswervingly committed to due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices is an absolutely necessary first step toward regaining control over our asylum system without sacrificing the legal rights of asylum seekers. The system can’t start eliminating backlog until it ceases doing those things that build unnecessary backlog in the first place.

In the meantime, this example of “law you can use” from “Sir Jeffrey” promises to be the “gift that keeps on giving” during what is sure to be a difficult upcoming year for refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, and their dedicated attorneys and representatives!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-26-23

🤯☠️🤮 BAD JUDGING TRIFECTA: BIA’s Poor Performance Tries The Patience Of The Ultra-Conservative 5th Circuit!

Three LemonsBy Auguste Renoir (1918} Public Realm — Three Lemons
By Auguste Renoir (1918}
Public Realm
The BIA pulls three lemons on an epic judging fail that left a sour taste in the mouths of Fifth Circuit Judges!

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/big-reversal-and-victory-at-ca5-argueta-hernandez-ii

On July 10, 2023, a Fifth Circuit panel dismissed Mr. Argueta-Hernandez’ petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, 73 F.4th 300.

On Dec. 5, 2023 the panel (Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas) granted rehearing, granted the petition, vacated and remanded:

“Although we owe deference to the BIA, that deference is not blind. Here, where the BIA misapplied prevailing case law, disregarded crucial evidence, and failed to adequately support its decisions, we are compelled to grant the petition for review, vacate the immigration court decisions, and remand to BIA for further proceedings.”

[Hats way off to Alison Lo, Jonathan Cooper and Chuck Roth!]

Alison Lo, Esquire

Jonathan Cooper, Esquire

Chuck Roth, Esquire

****************

Congrats to this all-star NDPA litigation team. Once again, the expertise and scholarship in asylum and immigration law is on the “outside,” the NDPA, rather than at EOIR where it is so much needed!

Judge Higginbotham is a Reagan appointee. Judge Graves was appointed by Obama. Judge Douglas is a Biden appointee.

Here’s what the “coveted trifecta of bad judging” looks like:

The BIA:

1) misapplied prevailing case law,

2) disregarded crucial evidence, and

3) failed to adequately support its decisions!

My only question is: Did they manage to get the ”A#” right?

Golden nugget: The 5th Circuit recognizes that under the Supremes’ decision in Cardoza-Fonseca: “A ‘reasonable degree’ [for establishing a “well founded fear”] means a ten percent chance.” This “seminal rule” is violated by BIA panels and Immigration Judges across the nation on a daily basis. It is also widely ignored by many Circuit panels.

Unlike the BIA, Judge Higgenbotham carefully and clearly explains how threats other than physical injury can amount to persecution — another “seminal rule” that too many EOIR adjudicators routinely ignore.

In sharp contrast to the BIA’s intentional “butchering” of the “mixed motive” doctrine in Matter of M-R-M-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023), Judge Higgenbotham correctly articulates the meaning of “at least one central reason.” See https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/12/04/☠️🤯-bia-trashes-normal-legal-rules-of-causation-jettisons-4th-cir-precedent-to-deny-family-based-psg-case-the-latest-anti-asylum-znger-from-falls-church-famil/.

He states:

By characterizing MS-13’s threats against Argueta-Hernandez and his family as
solely extortion, BIA disregards that he needed only to present “‘some
particularized connection between the feared persecution’” and the
protected ground in which his application for relief relies. . . . Such a rigorous standard would largely render nugatory the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).”).

Precisely! Ignoring Cardoza-Fonseca and their own binding precedent in Matter of Mogharrabi is what the BIA does frequently in “manipulating the nexus requirement” to deny meritorious claims to qualified refugees who face real harm! It’s all part of the toxic anti-asylum bias and “any reason to deny culture” that still permeates EOIR under Garland!

The BIA is not allowed to “presume,” as they effectively did in M-R-M-S-, the lack of qualifying motivation in “family based” psg cases and place an undue burden on the respondent to “prove” otherwise.

The panel also reams out the BIA for failure to follow basic rules and precedents requiring a separate CAT analysis.

Unlike the legal gobbldygook, obfuscation, doublespeak, and “canned” language that plagues many BIA opinions, Judge Higginbotham offers a clear, understandable, clinical explanation of asylum law and how it should be applied to what is actually a recurring situation in asylum law!

Reading this very clear opinion, I couldn’t help but feel that it was a panel of “general jurisdiction” Federal Judges from a so-called “conservative Circuit” who understood the complexity and nuances of asylum law, while the BIA Appellate Judges were the “rank amateurs.” This reflects a criticism oft made by my Round Table colleague Hon. “Sir Jeffrey” Chase that EOIR’s asylum training is grotesquely substandard — far below that readily available in the “private/NGO/academic” sector! What possible excuse could there be for this ongoing travesty at DOJ?

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges. His consistent, outspoken criticism of EOIR’s poor asylum training is proving all too true on a daily basis!

AG Garland continues to show a truly (and disturbingly) remarkable tolerance for poor judicial performance by his subordinates at the BIA. At the same time, he shows little, if any, concern for the deadly devastating impact of that bad judging on human lives and the way it corrodes our entire legal system!

The glaring, life-threatening legal and operational problems at EOIR are solvable. We should all be asking why, after three years in office, a Dem Administration has made such feeble efforts to bring long overdue leadership, substantive, and operational changes to “America’s worst court system?” Well into what was supposed to be a “reform” Administration, EOIR remains a steeped in the “culture of denial and bias against asylum seekers” actively furthered by the Trump Administration and NOT effectively addressed by Garland (although he concededly has made a few improvements)!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

12-06-23

☠️🤮 DEADLY UNFAIR “COURTS” POTENTIAL “DEATH TRIBUNALS” FOR AFGHAN HAZARA REFUGEES — Hon “Sir Jeffrey” Chase Speaks Out: “Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase!”

https://apnews.com/article/afghanistan-deportation-taliban-asylum-us-immigration-court-cabf3bcdec9a62b12f08300d1260cd68

Julie Watson reports for AP:

The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.

Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.

He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.

At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.

“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.

. . . .

Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase
Jeffrey S. Chase Blog
Coordinator & Chief Spokesperson, Round Table of Former Immigration Judges

Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.

But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.

“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.

Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.

“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”

Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases.

John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.

. . . .

*******************

Read Julie’s complete article at the link.

Hazaras are an historically persecuted group in Afghanistan whose already perilous situation has demonstrably worsened under the Taliban. See, e.g., https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/blog/urgent-action-needed-hazaras-in-afghanistan-under-attack. This case should have been a “slam dunk grant” under a proper application of precedents like Cardoza and Mogharrabi! Additionally, Hazara claims should be routinely grantable under the “pattern or practice of persecution” regulations that EOIR judges are supposed to apply (but seldom do).

No wonder this system builds incredible unnecessary backlogs when it botches the easy grants, wastes time on specious, disingenuous reasons for denial, and allows questionably-qualified judges to run roughshod over due process, the rule of law, and binding precedents.

Here’s additional commentary from “Sir Jeffrey:”

Thankfully, the amazing Steve Schulman at Akin Gump took on Mohamed’s case after his pro se hearing, and Human Rights First provided additional support.

(The Round Table was prepared to file an amicus brief on this one at the Fifth Circuit, but an agreement was reached to reopen the case at the IJ level before briefing was due.)

That the Government agreed to reopen this case basically “says it all” about the absurd result in the original hearing and the bogus “waiver” of appeal.

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-29-23

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑‍⚖️👨🏾‍⚖️ ATTENTION NDPA: BETTER COURTS MEAN A BETTER AMERICA, FROM THE “RETAIL LEVEL” TO THE SUPREMES! — The Future Immigration Courts Are Being Formed Today — We Need NDPA All-Stars 🌟 On The Bench! — You Can’t Be Selected If You Don’t Apply (My History Notwithstanding)!

I want you — Don’t just complain about the awful mess @ EOIR! Get on the bench and do something about it!
Public Domain

EOIR is looking for “many judges in many locations:”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/immigration/b/insidenews/posts/many-immigration-judge-positions-open

https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/job/immigration-judge-26

**************************

Some folks who should be applying for these jobs tell me they “couldn’t work with such an unfair law.” I say “poppycock.” To a large extent, the law and the unfair results are only as bad as EOIR judges choose make them.

But, it doesn’t have to be that way! For example, you can choose to:

Apply Cardoza-Fonseca, Mogharrabi, Kasinga, A-R-C-G-, and other precedents favorable to applicants fairly and robustly;
Honestly apply the presumption of future persecution set forth in 8 CFR 208.13 and actually put the burden on DHS to rebut it with evidence, not mere conjecture;
Carefully consider the possibility of a discretionary grant of asylum under the regulations (“so-called Chen grant”), even where the government rebuts the presumption of a well-founded fear;
Make realistic, practical, proper credibility determinations based on “the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors;”
Require only “reasonably available” corroborating evidence;
Actually follow the legal principle that credible testimony, in an of itself, can be enough to grant relief;
Apply the “reasonableness of internal relocation” regulation set forth at 8 CFR 208.13(b)(3) honestly;
Fairly apply the properly generous interpretation of the “well founded fear” standard required by the Supremes in Cardoza and described by the BIA in Mogharrabi to cases where there is no past persecution;
Incorporate the latest scholarship on “country conditions,” rather than “cherry picking” DOS Country Reports looking for ways to deny;
Use the latest body of scholarship on “best interests of the child” in deciding cancellation of removal for non-LPRs;
Schedule cases in a reasonable manner, in consultation with both counsel, to eliminate endemic “aimless docket reshuffling;”
Take measures to promote and facilitate representation of individuals, rather than throwing up roadblocks;
Make ICE counsel do their jobs, rather than doing it for them, particularly in cases where ICE unilaterally declines to appear at the merits hearing;
Use all of your practical skills and knowledge of the law and practice to solve problems and promote efficiency;
Consider all interpretations available to you, not just “defaulting” to the one offered by ICE;
Make careful, analytical, findings of fact, rather than just glossing over facts favorable to the individuals and over-emphasizing or fabricating the facts most favorable to DHS;
Make your “courtroom a classroom” where exceptional scholarship, due process, fundamental fairness, teamwork, practical solutions to human problems, and best practices are promoted and institutionalized.

You might well find, like I did, that being guided by Cardoza and Mogharrabi, sticking to your guns, providing full due process, and faithfully following the law actually leads to grants of relief in the majority of individual hearings. Notably, ICE seldom appealed my grants, and I was rarely reversed by the BIA, no matter who appealed.

I actually did better with my former BIA colleagues as an IJ than I had during my eight years of service on the Board. Indeed, as I sometimes quipped, as an IJ, I finally got that which my colleagues often denied me during my tenure as BIA Chair and an Appellate Judge/BIA Member: deference!

Worried about “life after EOIR!” Yes, there is such a thing!

And, a quick survey of our Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members 🛡⚔️ would show everything from partners and of counsel in law firms, professors and educators, major NGO supervisors and attorneys, community activists, consultants and coaches, to those, like me, who claim to be “fully retired and just enjoying life.” The Round Table actually has great credibility with the Federal Courts and the media because, unlike sitting judges and their “handlers,” we can actually speak truth to power outside the courtroom!

Whether you serve for a year or the rest of your career, what you learn as an EOIR judge if you pay attention, will give you a “leg up” and otherwise unobtainable practical knowledge of how America’s most important, yet least understood, court system actually works (or not)!

Every week, almost every day in fact, we see in Federal Court reversals and remands to EOIR and reports from practitioners about unpublished successes the fundamental difference that great litigation and equally “great judging” can make in reaching correct results! Making it happen every day, in every court, at the “retail level,” rather than counting on the uncertainties and limitations of Circuit review, will save lives and change the delivery of justice throughout America!

NDPAers, the “EOIR train” is leaving the station. 🚅 As a nation, we can’t afford the “best and the brightest” of today’s legal profession not to be on board! So, get those “many applications” in for those “many jobs” and let’s see if we can fix this “life or death system” from both the inside and the outside! We won’t know if we don’t try!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

09-27-23

🏴‍☠️👎🏼🤮 JUSTICE’S UNJUST “COURTS!” — Recent Reports Highlight Horribly Failed System —Asylum Free Zones, Unqualified Prosecutor-Judges, Deadly Denials, Blatant Information Imbalance, Dehumanizing Treatment, Poor Access To Counsel, Docket Mayhem, Unrealistic Timelines, Biased Outcomes, Indifference To Human Life, Unaccountability, Among The Myriad Problems Flagged By Those Forced To Deal With Garland’s Ongoing Mockery Of Due Process! — EXTRA! — How Poor Legal Performance @ DOJ Skews The Entire Immigration Debate!

injustice — Injustice
Public Realm
Dems spend lots of time whining about the destruction of the Federal Judiciary by GOP right-wing extremists. However, after two years in charge, they have done little to bring due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial expertise to America’s worst courts — the Immigration Courts — which they totally control!

Austin Kocher, Ph.D.
Research Assistant Professor
TRAC-Syracuse
PHOTO: Syracuse U.

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported

Omaha is now the toughest court in the country for asylum seekers, MPI hosts discussion on immigration courts in crisis, interview with an immigration judge, and more.

Asylum Seeker Killed in Guatemala after Omaha Immigration Judge Ordered Him Deported austinkocher.substack.com • 1 min read

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086002474968313856?updateEntityUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_feedUpdate%3A%28V2%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7086002474968313856%29

*****************************

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case + Online Event

Even the best attorneys require 50-75 hours over several months to complete an asylum case. The Biden admin’s attempts to speed up asylum cases may be ignoring this reality.

…see more

New Research by AILA Reveals Anatomy of an Asylum Case

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832?updateEntityUrn=urn:li:fs_feedUpdate:(V2,urn:li:activity:7086001618898296832)

*********************************

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

Lauren Iosue

View Lauren Iosue’s profile

• 1st

J.D. Candidate at Georgetown University Law Center

3d •

Through my internship at the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, I observed master calendar hearings in the detained docket in the Florence Immigration Court. I was back in Florence, Arizona, because the court itself is located within the barbed wire of the detention center. Observing the Florence Immigration Court emphasized how dehumanizing removal proceedings can be for detained immigrants. Master calendar hearings are often immigrants’ first interaction with the Court. To start, a guard brought a group of men in jumpsuits to the courtroom and lined them up. The judge read them their rights and then called them individually to discuss their case. Twice I witnessed the wrong person being brought into court where they sat through proceedings until the guards realized and switched them out for the correct person.

The vast majority of Respondents in removal proceedings are unrepresented. There is a blatant information imbalance in immigration court when the immigrant is unrepresented. Oftentimes, pro se detained immigrants do not have access to the resources represented or released Respondents have during their proceedings. Respondents may not know their legal options unless organizations like the Florence Project can speak to them before their hearing and provide them with pro se information packets or represent them. During the hearing, the men did not even have a pen and paper to take notes. Meanwhile, the immigration judge and government attorney have access to technology and a wealth of experience to pull from to make legal arguments.

This is just one example of many – my colleagues and I also observed translation issues and pushback against some men who wished to continue fighting their case. Above all, I’ll leave with this very simple observation: the judge and guards called each man up by his court docket number before his name. If we are to support and uphold the dignity of all people, we must do so especially in systems that look to strip it from them. Providing immigrants with access to a lawyer, if they’d like one, can ensure that people have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions about their case. The Florence Project is one of the organizations working tirelessly to expand access to representation throughout Arizona, and I hope to continue this work after graduating from Georgetown University Law Center next year. #EJAFellowUpdate | Equal Justice America

********************

Congrats to Lauren Iosue, and thanks for becoming a member of the NDPA! 😎 The scary thing: As an L-3, Lauren appears to have more “hands on” Immigration Court experience and a far deeper appreciation of the material, sometimes fatal, flaws in the EOIR system, than Garland and his other “top brass” in the DOJ responsible for operating and overseeing this tragic mess!

Why isn’t “real life” immigration/human rights experience representing individuals in Immigration Court were an absolute requirement for appointment to AG, Deputy AG, Associate AG, Solicitor General, and Assistant AG for Civil (in charge of OIL) in any Dem Administration, at least until such time as the Immigration Courts become an Article I Court removed from the DOJ?

30-years ago, when I was at Jones Day, we were budgeting a minimum of 100 hours of professional time for a pro bono asylum case! That was before the “21st century BIA” added more unnecessary, artificial technicalities to make it more difficult for asylum seekers to win. It’s not “rocket science!” 🚀

Lucy McMillan ESQUIRE
Chief Pro Bono Counsel
Arnold & Porter
Washington, D.C.
PHOTO: A&P

All Garland would have to do is reach back into his “big law” days at Arnold & Porter (“A&P”). He should pick up his cell phone and call Lucy McMillan, the award-winning Chief Pro Bono Counsel @ A&P. Ask Lucy what needs to change to get EOIR functioning as a due-process-focused model court system! Better yet, reassign upper “management” at EOIR, and hire Lucy to clean house and restore competence, efficiency, and excellence to his currently disgracefully-dysfunctional “courts!”

As Austin’s posts and the reports he references show, Garland’s indolent, tone-deaf, mal-administration of the Immigration Courts is a national disgrace that undermines democracy and betrays core values of the Democratic Party! How does he get away with it? Thanks to Austin, AILA, Lauren, and others exposing the ongoing “EOIR charade” in a Dem Administration!

As shown by recent “Courtside” postings about the “Tsunami” 🌊 of Article III “rejections” of lousy BIA decisions, throughout America, many, many more asylum cases could be timely granted with a properly well-qualified, expert BIA setting precedents and forcing judges like those in Omaha to properly and generously apply asylum law or find other jobs! Maximum protection, NOT “maximum rejection,” is the proper and achievable (yet unrealized) objective of asylum laws!

Asylum law, according to the Supremes and even the BIA is supposed to be generously and practically applied — so much so that asylum can and ordinarily should be granted even where the chances are “significantly less” than probable. See Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I & N Dec. 439, 446 (BIA 1987).

The problem is that the BIA and EOIR have never effectively implemented and followed the Mogharrabi standard. In recent years, particularly during the Trump debacle, they have moved further than ever away from this proper legal standard while still giving it lip service! Clearly, the IJs in Omaha and other “Asylum Free Zones” are operating outside the realm of asylum law with deadly and destructive consequences. Yet, Garland, a former Federal Judge himself, permits it! Why?

The assumption that most asylum seekers who pass credible fear should ultimately lose on the merits is false and based on intentionally overly restrictive mis-interpretations and mis-applications of asylum law! It’s a particular problem with respect to asylum seekers of color from Latin America and Haiti — a definite racial dimension that DOJ and DHS constantly “sweep under the carpet.” Because of the extraordinarily poor leadership from EOIR, DOJ, and DHS, this “fundamental falsehood of inevitable denial” infects the entire asylum debate and materially influences policies.

A dedicated long-time “hands-on” asylum expert, someone who actually met some of the “Abbott/DeSantis busses,” said that over 70% of those arriving from the border had potentially grantable asylum claims. That’s a far cry from the “nobody from the Southern border will qualify” myth that drives asylum policy by both parties and has even been, rather uncritically, “normalized” by the media.

Fixing EOIR is a prerequisite to an informed discussion of immigration and development of humane, rational, realistic immigration policies. That would be laws and policies based on reality, not myths, distortions, and sometimes downright fabrications.

Competent representation is also an essential part of fixing EOIR. There are ways to achieve it that Garland is ignoring and/or inhibiting. See, e.g., VIISTA Villanova. No excuses!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

PWS

07-17-23

⚖️🧑‍⚖️ IMMIGRATION COURTS IN CRISIS = DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS — NY Times Article Quoting Round Table’s Judge Eiza Klein & Charles Honeyman, Also NDPA Officials, Judge Mimi Tsankov and Judge Samuel Cole! — PLUS BONUS COVERAGE: My Latest “Mini Essay” — “EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS”

Hon. Eliza Klein — Eliza C. Klein, a retired immigration judge, said the asylum case backlog “creates a second class of citizens.”Credit…Taylor Glascock for The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/12/us/politics/immigration-courts-delays-migrants-title-42.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Zolan Kanno-Youngs reports for the NYT:

. . . .

Eliza C. Klein, who left her position as an immigration judge in Chicago in April, said the latest increase in illegal border crossings will strain the understaffed work force as they prioritize migrants who crossed recently.

That will leave some older cases to languish even longer, she said.

“This is a great tragedy because it creates a second class of citizens,” Ms. Klein, who started working as an immigration judge in the Clinton administration, said of those immigrants who have been waiting years for an answer to their case. The oldest case Ms. Klein ever adjudicated had been pending in the court for 35 years, she said.

“It’s a disgrace,” Ms. Klein said. “My perspective, my thought, is that we’re not committed in this country to having a just system.”

While crowds of migrants continued to seek refuge in the United States after the lifting of Title 42, U.S. officials said the border remained relatively orderly. About 10,000 people crossed the border on Thursday, a historically large number, but that dropped significantly to about 6,200 on Friday.

Tens of thousands of migrants continued to wait in makeshift camps on both sides of the border for a chance to request sanctuary in the United States. The administration remained concerned about overcrowding; Border Patrol held more than 24,000 migrants in custody on Friday, well over the agency’s maximum capacity of roughly 20,000 in its detention facilities.

. . . .

Mimi Tsankov, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, said that to truly address the backlog, the Biden administration would need to do more than simply hire more judges. She said that the government should increase funding for better technology and bigger legal teams, and that Congress should reform the nation’s immigration laws.

“The immigration courts are failing,” said Samuel B. Cole, the judge association’s executive vice president. “There needs to be broad systemic change.”

. . . . .

Judge Charles Honeyman, who spent 24 years as an immigration judge and retired in 2020, said he came away from his job believing the United States would need to do a better job of deterring fraud while protecting those who would be harmed in their home country.

When handling an asylum case, Mr. Honeyman said he would assess the person’s application and examine the state of their home country by reading reports from the State Department and nonprofits. Many of the applicants lacked attorneys; he believes some cases that he denied might have turned out differently if the migrants had had legal representation.

In trying to root out fraud, he would compare a person’s testimony with the answers they had given to an asylum officer or Border Patrol agent.

. . . .

*******************************

Read the full article at the link.

EOIR ABUSES ASYLUM SEEKERS — The Problem Goes Deeper Than The Number Of Judges: Quality & Culture Matter!

By Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Courtside Exclusive

May 16, 2023

While the NYT article notes that the majority of asylum cases are eventually denied on the merits, this data is often presented in a misleading way by the Government, and unfortunately, sometimes the media. According to TRAC Immigration, during the period Oct 2000 to April 2023, approximately 43% of asylum seekers who received a merits decision were granted asylum or some other type of relief. Approximately 57% were denied. https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/

Even in an overall hostile system, where individuals are often required to proceed without lawyers, and grant/denial rates among Immigration Judges vary by astounding levels (so great as to present prima facie due process issues), asylum seekers succeed on the merits of their claims at a very respectable rate. In a properly staffed and administered system where the focus was on due process and fundamental fairness for individuals, that number would almost certainly be substantially higher.

Moreover, the data suggests that toward the end of the Obama Administration and during the entire Trump Administration, the asylum system was improperly manipulated to increase denials.

For instance, in FY 2012, approximately 55% of asylum claims decided by EOIR on the merits were granted. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/306/. While there was no discernible worldwide improvement in human rights conditions in the following years, IJ asylum grant rates cratered during the Trump years, reaching a low of 29% in FY 2020, barely half the FY 2012 level. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/668/#:~:text=While%20asylum%20grant%20rates%20declined,after%20President%20Biden%20assumed%20office.%20That%E2%80%99s%20a%20decline%20of%20nearly%2050%%20since%20the%20FY%202012%20high.

I think there are three reasons for the precipitous decline in asylum grant rates, largely unrelated to the merits of the claims. First, Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr overruled some of the leading administrative precedents supporting grants of asylum. In the process, they made it crystal clear that they considered Immigration Judges to be their subordinate employees within the political branch of Government and that denial, deportation, and assistance to their “partners” at DHS Enforcement (actually DHS is a party before EOIR, not a “partner”) were the preferred results at EOIR.

Second, in greatly expanding the number of Immigration Judges, Sessions and Barr appointed almost exclusively from the ranks of prosecutors and government attorneys, even elevating an inordinate number of individuals with no immigration and human rights experience whatsoever. Not only were well-qualified individuals with experience representing individuals in Immigration Court largely passed over and discouraged from applying, but some of the best Immigration Judges quit or retired prematurely as a matter of conscience because of the nakedly anti-immigrant pro enforcement “culture” promoted at EOIR.

Additionally, the nationwide appellate court and precedent setter, the BIA, was expanded and “packed” with some Immigration Judges who denied virtually all of the asylum cases coming before them and had reputations of hostility to the private bar and asylum seekers. Remarkably, Attorney General Garland has done little to address this debilitating situation at the BIA.

Third, since the latter years of the Obama Administration, when a vastly overhyped “border surge” took place, political officials of both parties have improperly “weaponized” EOIR as a “deterrent” to asylum seekers, focusing on expeditious denials of asylum rather than the due process and expert tribunal functions the agency was supposed to serve. The result has been a “culture of denial and deportation” with particular emphasis on finding ways to “say no” to women and individuals of color seeking asylum.

The NYT Article also mentions that asylum merits decisions require a higher standard of proof than “credible fear determinations.” That’s true. But the suggestion that the standards are much higher is misleading. In fact, the standards governing merits grants of asylum before the Asylum Office and EOIR are supposed to be extremely generous.

In the seminal case, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Court said that “well-founded fear” is a generous standard, one that could be satisfied by a 10% chance of persecution. In implementing this holding, the BIA found in Matter of Mogharrabi that asylum could be granted even where the chances of persecution were substantially less than probable.

There is as also a regulation, 8 C.F.R. 208.13, issued under the Bush I Administration, that creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution based on past persecution.

The problem is that none of these generous and remedial provisions relating to asylum has ever been properly, consistently, and uniformly applied within EOIR. As someone who during my time on the bench took these standards to heart, I found that a substantial majority of merits asylum cases coming before me could and should be granted under a proper application of asylum law.

Consequently, I am skeptical of judges who deny virtually all asylum claims. Likewise, I question the claims by political officials of both parties who pretend, without actual knowledge, that almost all asylum applicants at the border are “mere economic migrants” who deserve to be quickly and summarily removed.

Actually, under some circumstances, severe economic hardships can amount to persecution. Moreover, under the legally required “mixed motive” analysis for asylum, an economic aspect does not automatically obviate other qualifying grounds.

So, at its root, “credible fear” is actually an even more generous application of what is already supposed to be (but often isn’t in reality) a very generous standard for asylum. The alleged “disconnect” between the number of individuals found to have credible fear and the number actually granted asylum on the merits appears to be more a function of defective and overly restrictive decision-making at EOIR than it is of unjustified generosity of Asylum Officers screening for credible fear. It’s also important to remember that at the credible fear stage, individuals haven’t had time to marshal the substantial corroborating evidence eventually required (some would say unrealistically and unreasonably) in formal merits asylum hearings before EOIR.

Finally, just aimlessly increasing the number of Immigration Judges, without solving the systemic legal, logistical, management, quality control, training, and “cultural” problems infecting EOIR creates its own set of new problems.

Recently, a veteran practitioner before EOIR wrote the following:

In about eleven years, our local DMV went from twelve (12) judges in Baltimore and Arlington in 2012 to a hundred (100) judges in 2023 (8 BAL, 18 HYA, 30 WAS, 9 FCIAC, 14 RIAC, 21 STE). That’s an increase of 733.33%. This seismic expansion has resulted in many attorneys being overscheduled for individual hearings, which has an adverse effect on our clients, our ethical obligations, due process, and mental health.

Well-prepared attorneys, many serving pro bono or “low bono,” are absolutely essential to due process and fundamental fairness in Immigration Court, particularly in cases involving asylum and other forms of protection. For EOIR to schedule cases in a manner that does not take into consideration the legitimate needs and capacities of those practicing before their courts is nothing short of malpractice on the part of DOJ leadership.

There is a silver lining here. The EOIR judicial hiring program gives NDPA stars a chance to get on the bench at the retail level level, bring much needed balance and perspective, and to develop the credentials for future Article III judicial appointments. Since change isn’t coming “from the top,” we need to make it happen at the “grass roots level!” Keep those applications coming!

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

05-16-23

☠️🤮 TAKE MY UPDATED “TOUR” OF AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS, A/K/A “EOIR” — “Due Process Doesn’t Live Here Any More!”

Star Chamber Justice — **“Justice”**
**Star Chamber**
**Style**

DUE PROCESS DOESN’T LIVE HERE ANY MORE: WEAPONIZED IMMIGRATION COURTS ARE AMERICA’S STAR CHAMBERS

Paul Wickham Schmidt

Retired U.S. Immigration Judge

“Immigration 101”

Renaissance Institute

Notre Dame University of Maryland in Baltimore

April 18, 2023

I. INTRODUCTION

Good morning. Thank you so much for inviting me, and for coming out on this beautiful Spring day. It’s an honor to be here.

Today, I’m going to tell you the sad story of how our Immigration Courts, housed in an agency called the Executive Office for Immigration Review (acronym “EOIR” for you “Winnie The Pooh” fans) within the U.S. Department of Justice, went from being the “Jewel in the Crown” to becoming “America’s Star Chambers,” where due process and human dignity are trampled daily. I will intertwine EOIR’s saga with my own career. Because, in many ways, my history and EOIR’s are the same. But, there’s a larger story in here that I hope you will pick up and that will tie together much of what you will learn in class.

Now, this is when I used to give my comprehensive disclaimer providing “plausible deniability” for everyone in the Immigration Court System if I happened to say anything inconvenient or controversial. But, now that I’m retired, we can skip that part.

However, I do want to hold Professor Rabben, the Renaissance Institute, the University, your faculty, trustees, you, and anybody else of any importance whatsoever “harmless” for my remarks which are solely my own views. No party line, no bureaucratic doublespeak, no sugar coating, no BS. Just the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as I see and have lived it for five decades.

Also, because today is Tuesday, and you are such a great audience, I’m giving you my famous, industry-best, absolute, unconditional, money-back guarantee that this talk will be completely free from computer-generated slides, power points, or any other type of distracting modern technology that might interfere with your total comprehension or listening enjoyment. In other words, I am your “power point.”

II. CAREER SUMMARY

I graduated in 1970 from Lawrence University a small liberal arts college in Appleton, Wisconsin, where I majored in history. My broad liberal arts education and the intensive writing and intellectual dialogue involved were the best possible preparation for all that followed.

I then attended the University of Wisconsin School of Law in Madison, Wisconsin, graduating in 1973. Go Badgers!

I began my legal career in 1973 as an Attorney Advisor at the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) at the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) under the Attorney General’s Honors Program. Admittedly, however, the BIA’s Executive Assistant culled my resume from the “Honors Program reject pile.”

At that time, before the creation of the Executive Office for Immigration Review – “EOIR” — the Board had only five members and nine staff attorneys, as compared to today’s cast of thousands. Among other things, I worked on the famous, or infamous, John Lennon case, which eventually was reversed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.^[1]

The Chairman of the BIA at that time was the legendary “immigration guru” Maurice A. “Maury” Roberts. Chairman Roberts took me under this wing and shared his love of immigration law, his focus on sound scholarship, his affinity for clear, effective legal writing, and his humane sense of fairness and justice for the individuals coming before the BIA. A sense, I might add, that is conspicuously absent from today’s EOIR.

In 1976, I moved to the Office of General Counsel at the “Legacy” Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). There, I worked for another legendary figure in immigration law, then General Counsel Sam Bernsen. Sam was a first-generation immigrant who started his career as a 17-year-old messenger at Ellis Island and worked his way to the top of the Civil Service ranks. Perhaps not incidentally, he was also a good friend of Chairman Roberts.

At that time, the Office of General Counsel was very small, with a staff of only three attorneys in addition to the General Counsel and his Deputy, another mentor and immigration guru, Ralph Farb. At one time, all three of us on the staff sat in the same office!

In 1978, Ralph was appointed to the BIA, and I succeeded him as Deputy General Counsel. I also served as the Acting General Counsel for several very lengthy periods in both the Carter and Reagan Administrations.

Not long after I arrived, the General Counsel position became political. The incoming Carter Administration encouraged Sam to retire, and he went on to become a name and Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of the powerhouse immigration boutique Fragomen, Del Rey, and Bernsen. He was replaced by my good friend and former colleague, the late Judge David Crosland, who selected me as his Deputy. Dave was also the Acting Commissioner of Immigration during the second half of the Carter Administration, one of the periods when I was the Acting General Counsel.

The third General Counsel that I served under, during the Reagan Administration, was one of my most “unforgettable characters:” the late, great Maurice C. “Mike” Inman, Jr. He was known, not always affectionately, as “Iron Mike.” His management style was something of a cross between the famous coach of the Green Bay Packers, Vince Lombardi, and the fictional Mafia chieftain, Don Corleone.

Although we were totally different personalities, Mike and I made a good team, and we accomplished amazing things. It was more or less a “good cop, bad cop” routine, and I’ll let you guess who played which role.

Among other things, I worked on the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the Cuban Boatlift, the Refugee Act of 1980, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), the creation of the Office of Immigration Litigation (“OIL”), and establishing what has evolved into the modern Chief Counsel system at Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

I also worked on the creation of EOIR in 1983, which combined the Immigration Courts, which had previously been part of the INS, with the BIA to improve judicial independence. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, the leadership and impetus for getting the Immigration Judges into a separate organization came from Mike and the late Al Nelson, who was then the Commissioner of Immigration. Prosecutors by position and litigators by trade, they saw the inherent conflicts and overall undesirability, from a due process and credibility standpoint, of having immigration enforcement and impartial court adjudication in the same division.

I find it disturbing that officials at today’s DOJ have actually recreated and aggravated many of the problems and glaring conflicts of interest that EOIR originally was created to overcome. Indeed, as I will discuss later, they have allowed the Immigration Courts to become “weaponized” as a tool of immigration enforcement.

For example, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions unethically and improperly referred to supposedly fair and impartial Immigration Judges as “in partnership” with DHS enforcement. A.G. Garland has done little to dispel this notion.

By the time I left in 1987, the General Counsel’s Office, largely as a result of the enactment of IRCA and new employer sanctions provisions, had dozens of attorneys, organized into divisions, and approximately 600 attorneys in the field program, the vast majority of whom had been hired during my tenure.

In 1987, I resigned from INS and joined Jones Day’s DC Office, a job that I got largely because of my wife Cathy and her “old girl network.” I eventually became a partner specializing in business immigration, multinational executives, and religious workers. Among my major legislative projects on behalf of our clients were the special religious worker provisions added to the law by the Immigration Act of 1990 and the “Special Immigrant Juvenile” provisions of the INA.

Following my time at Jones Day, I succeeded my former boss and mentor Sam Bernsen as the Managing Partner of the DC Office of Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen, the leading national immigration boutique, where I continued to concentrate on business immigration. Immigration is a small community; you need to be nice to everyone because you keep running into the same folks over and over again in your career. While at Fragomen, I also assisted the American Immigration Lawyers Association (“AILA”) on a number of projects and was an asylum adviser to the Lawyers’ Committee on Human Rights, now known as Human Rights First.

In 1995, then Attorney General Janet Reno appointed me Chairman of the BIA. Not surprisingly, the late Janet Reno was my favorite among all of the Attorneys General I worked under. I felt that she supported me personally, and she supported the concept of an independent judiciary, even though she didn’t always agree with our decisions and vice versa.

She was the only Attorney General who consistently came to our Investitures and Immigration Judge Conferences in person and mixed and mingled with the group. She had a saying “equal justice for all” that she worked into almost all of her speeches, and which I found quite inspirational.

She was also hands-down the funniest former Attorney General to appear on “Saturday Night Live,” doing her famous “Janet Reno Dance Party” routine with Will Farrell immediately following the end of her lengthy tenure at the DOJ. Can you imagine Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr, or Merrick Garland making live appearances on SNL, and laughing at themselves. Not likely!

Among other things, as Chair, I oversaw an expansion of the Board from the historical five members to more than 20 members, a more open selection system that gave some outside experts a chance to serve as appellate judges on the Board, the creation of a supervisory structure for the expanding staff, the establishment of a unified Clerk’s Office to process appeals, implementation of a true judicial format for published opinions, institution of bar coding for the tens of thousands of files, the establishment of a pro bono program to assist unrepresented respondents on appeal, the founding of the Virtual Law Library, electronic en banc voting and e-distribution of decisions to Immigration Judges, and the publication of the first BIA Practice Manual, which actually won a “Plain Language Award” from then Vice President Gore.

I also wrote the majority opinion in my favorite case, Matter of Kasinga, establishing for the first time that the practice of female genital mutilation (“FGM”) is “persecution” for asylum purposes.^[2] The “losing” attorney in that case was none other than my good friend, then INS General Counsel David A. Martin, a famous emeritus immigration professor at University of Virginia Law, who personally argued before the Board.

In reality, however, by nominally “losing” the case, David actually won the war for both of us, and more important, for the cause of suffering women throughout the world. We really were on the same side in Kasinga — the side of protecting vulnerable women.

During my tenure as Chairman, then Chief Immigration Judge (now BIA Judge) Michael J. Creppy and I were founding members of the International Association of Refugee Law Judges (“IARLJ”). This organization, today headquartered in The Hague, promotes open dialogue and exchange of information among judges from many different countries adjudicating claims under the Geneva Convention on Refugees.

In 2001, under pressure from the incoming Bush Administration and new Attorney General John

Ashcroft, I stepped down as BIA Chairman, but remained as a Board Member until April 2003. At that time, Ashcroft, who was not a fan of my opinions, invited me to vacate the Board and finish my career at the Arlington Immigration Court, where I remained until my retirement on June 30, 2016.

So, I’m one of the few ever to become an Immigration Judge without applying for the job. Or, maybe my opinions, particularly the dissents, were my application and I just didn’t recognize it at the time. But, it turned out to be a great fit, and I truly enjoyed my time at the Arlington Court.

I have also taught at George Mason School of Law and at Georgetown Law where I am still an Adjunct Professor.

As a sitting judge, I encouraged meticulous preparation and advance consultation with the DHS Assistant Chief Counsel to stipulate or otherwise narrow issues. There currently are approximately two million pending cases in Immigration Court, a backlog that grows every day. Because of this overwhelming workload, efficiency and focusing on the disputed issues in court are particularly critical.

III. THE DUE PROCESS VISION

Now, let’s move on to the other topics: First, vision. The “EOIR Vision” once was: “Through teamwork and innovation, be the world’s best administrative tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.” In one of my prior incarnations, I was part of the group that developed that now abandoned and disrespected vision statement. Perhaps not surprisingly given the timing, that vision echoed the late Janet Reno’s “equal justice for all” theme.

Sadly, the Immigration Court System has moved ever further away from that due process vision. Instead, years of neglect, misunderstanding, mismanagement, and misguided priorities imposed by the U.S. Department of Justice have created judicial chaos with an expanding backlog now at an astounding two million cases, continuing to grow, with no clear plan for resolving them in the foreseeable future. Indeed, former AG Sessions actually maliciously and intentionally tried to add a potential 300,000 previously closed cases to those already on the active docket.

There are now more pending cases in Immigration Court than in the entire U.S. District Court System. Notwithstanding the hiring of hundreds of new judges by the past two Administrations, most in the Trump Administration from the ranks of Government prosecutors, the backlog continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

The Government has added hundreds of thousands, of new cases to the Immigration Court docket, again without any transparent plan for completing those already pending cases consistent with due process and fairness. They have done this despite efforts by the Biden Administration to re-establish sensible enforcement priorities and prosecutorial discretion that were trashed by the Trump Administration.

Even under Attorney General Garland, inexcusably, the “flavor of the day” is haphazardly advanced before pending cases which, in turn, are “orbited” to the end of the years long line. This results in what I call “Aimless Docket Reshuffling” or “ADR, EOIR-style.”

Notably, and most troubling, the only things that aren’t “priorities” for any Administration are fairness and due process in the immigration hearing process which have clearly been “thrown from the train” as the deportation express hurtles down the track. The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution – has become “the enemy” in today’s disgracefully dysfunctional Immigration Courts.

Nobody has been hit harder by this preventable disaster than asylum seekers, particularly scared women and children fleeing for their lives from the Northern Triangle of Central America. In Immigration Court, notwithstanding the life-or-death issues at stake, unlike criminal court there is no right to an appointed lawyer.

Individuals who can’t afford a lawyer must rely on practicing lawyers who donate their time or on nonprofit community organizations to find free or low-cost legal representation. Although the Government stubbornly resists the notion that all asylum seekers should be represented, studies show that represented asylum seekers are at least five times more likely to succeed than those who must represent themselves. For recently arrived women with children, the success differential is an astounding fourteen times!^[3]

Although the Biden Administration promised to do better, they actually are using somewhat improved technology to make matters worse for lawyers, mindlessly overbooking cases without advance consultation with counsel — sometimes simultaneously scheduling cases for the same attorney in different cities at the same time.

An Assistant Chief Judge for Training in the Obama Administration infamously claimed that he could teach immigration law to unrepresented toddlers appearing in Immigration Court. Issues concerning representation of so-called “vulnerable populations” continue to haunt our Court System. Even with Clinics and Non-Governmental Organizations pitching in, there simply are not enough free or low-cost lawyers available to handle the overwhelming need.

To make matters worse, Administrations of both parties engage in a number of legally questionable and morally reprehensible “gimmicks” and “schemes” to keep asylum applicants at the Southern Border from getting fair hearings in Immigration Court.

Whether it’s “dedicated dockets,” Remain in Mexico, abusive use of Title 42, family detention, child separation, invented “bars” to asylum, or forcing applicants stranded in dangerous conditions in Mexico to use failing technology to schedule appointments, the objective is to prevent asylum applicants from receiving due process. Instead, they are often wrongfully “orbited” back to Mexico, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador.

These are among the world’s most dangerous countries, some basically without functional governing systems. Once there, many suffer kidnapping, extortion, rape, torture, and even death at the hands of the same forces from which they originally fled.

It’s a total and intentional perversion of asylum law and American values. Worst of all, complicit Article III Courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, regularly “tank” in their duties to protect asylum applicants’ legal and constitutional rights. Instead, they “go along to get along” or pretend not to see or understand the grotesque human tragedy that they have enabled.

Customs and Border Protection officials brag about how limiting or eliminating asylum protections helps solve “the problem” and “reduce the numbers” at our Southern Border. In their view, refugees seeking legal protections under our laws and international conventions are a “problem” and human lives are merely “numbers” to be “reduced.”

It’s part of a concerted effort to “dehumanize the other” and convert them to “non-persons” under the law. I call this “Dred Scottification” after the infamous pre-Civil War Supreme Court case that declared that Blacks were not “persons” under our Constitution, although I hardly originated this term.

Notwithstanding today’s legal, Constitutional, and human rights disaster, I, for one, still believe that with proper enlightened leadership and some guts the “EOIR vision” could be fulfilled.

IV. THE ROLE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Changing subjects, to the role of the Immigration Judge: What’s it like to be an Immigration Judge? As an Immigration Judge, I was an administrative judge. I was not part of the Judicial Branch established under Article III of the Constitution.

The Attorney General, part of the Executive Branch, appointed me, and my authority was subject to her regulations. I might add that I also served at her pleasure, something that GOP Administrations “get,” but ineffectual Democratic Administrations, not so much. And, that has lots to do with the abysmal state of justice in the Immigration Courts under Garland.

We should all be concerned that the U.S. Immigration Court system, between 2017 and 2021, was totally under the control of Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, who consistently took negative views of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. Both failed to recognize the many essential, positive contributions that immigrants make to our country. They were also unfailingly biased against migrants in Immigration Court and their attorneys, in their negative and unethical “precedents,” and in prosecutor-friendly, immigration experience light, criteria for appointing new Immigration Judges and Appellate Judges at the BIA.

Indeed, in February 2020, a group of more than 2,500 former DOJ officials from Administrations of both parties, including me and many of my colleagues from the Round Table of Former Immigration Judges, took the extraordinary step of publicly calling on Barr to resign for corruption and compromising the independent role of the DOJ.^[6] Among other things, we “strongly condemn[ed] President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.” Certainly, that was reflected in his mishandling of the Immigration Courts and “weaponizing” them against migrants and their lawyers

The late Judge Terence T. Evans of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals offered one of the best descriptions of what it’s like to be an Immigration Judge:

Because 100 percent of asylum petitioners want to stay in this country, but less than 100 percent are entitled to asylum, an immigration judge must be alert to the fact that some petitioners will embellish their claims to increase their chances of success. On the other hand, an immigration judge must be sensitive to the suffering and fears of petitioners who are genuinely entitled to asylum in this country. A healthy balance of sympathy and skepticism is a job requirement for a good immigration judge. Attaining that balance is what makes the job of an immigration judge, in my view, excruciatingly difficult.^[5]

My good friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks of the San Francisco Immigration Court, who is the past President of the National Association of Immigration Judges, offers a somewhat pithier description: “[I]mmigration judges often feel asylum hearings are ‘like holding death penalty cases in traffic court.’”^[7]

An actual practitioner before today’s dysfunctional Immigration Courts was even blunter in an interview appearing in Mother Jones, one of my favorite scholarly publications: “An [expletive deleted] disaster that is designed to fail.”^[7]

Certainly, balance, Due Process, and fundamental fairness have been sacrificed in today’s Immigration Courts in favor of expediency and “weaponizing” the Immigration Courts as tools of DHS enforcement. In other words, they are now structured to be little more than a whistle-stop on the deportation express as the complicit Article IIIs look on.

Barr even took the extreme, unethical, step of moving to “decertify” the Immigration Judges union, the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”), of which, for full disclosure, I am a retired member. Actually, I believe my appearance here today was arranged through Linda contacting the NAIJ!

One of the keys to the Immigration Judge’s job is supposed to be issuing scholarly, practical, well-written opinions in the most difficult cases. That ties directly into the job of the Immigration Court’s Judicial Law Clerks (“JLCs”) assisted by legal interns from local law schools. Obviously, however, quality and care took a back seat to “productivity” under the Trump Administration’s program of “dumbing down” the Immigration Courts — not by any means effectively countermanded under Garland. Indeed, the already-strained ratio of Immigration Judges to judicial law clerks has gotten much worse over the past few years.

V. RECLAIMING THE VISION

Our Immigration Courts are going through an existential crisis that threatens the very foundations of our American Justice System. Earlier, I told you about my dismay that the noble due process vision of our Immigration Courts has been derailed and trashed. What can be done to re-establish it?

First, and foremost, the Immigration Courts must return to the focus on due process as the one and only mission. We must end the improper use of our due process court system by political officials to advance enforcement priorities and/or send “don’t come” messages to asylum seekers.

Ultimately, that will take an independent Article I Immigration Court, which has been supported by groups such as the ABA, the FBA, and the NAIJ, and was introduced in the last Congress by Subcommittee Chair Zoe Lofgren (D-CA).

Indeed, in February 2020, a hearing on “The State of Judicial Independence and Due Process in U.S. Immigration Courts” took place before Chair Lofgren’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship. Our 50+ strong “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges” filed a written statement in support of Due Process and creation of an independent, Article I Court.

You can find it on my blog “Immigrationcourtside.com,” which, of course, I highly recommend for anyone trying to understand what’s really happening in immigration these days.^[8] We also joined 53 other distinguished organizations and NGOs in writing to Congress urging them to establish an independent Immigration Court.^[9]

But, Article I is still a future dream. In the meantime, there is no excuse for Garland’s failure to make needed personnel, structural, and “cultural” changes at EOIR to restore due process.

Second, there must be radical structural changes so that the Immigration Courts are organized and run like a real court system, not a highly bureaucratic, headquarters bloated, enforcement agency. This means that sitting Immigration Judges, like in all other court systems, must control their dockets.

We must end the practice of having often clueless administrators in Falls Church and political bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., none of whom are sitting judges responsible for daily court hearings, manipulate and rearrange local dockets in an attempt to achieve policy goals unrelated to fairness and due process for individuals coming before the Immigration Courts.

Additionally, the judicial hiring process over the past 22 years has failed to produce the necessary balance because judicial selectees from private sector backgrounds – particularly those with expertise in asylum and refugee law –have been so few and far between. Indeed, during the Obama Administration nearly 90% of the judicial appointments were from Government backgrounds.

In the Trump Administration, nearly 100% of judicial appointments by Attorney General Barr came from prosecutorial or other public sector backgrounds. A number of these conspicuously lacked expertise in immigration and human rights laws!

Garland has done better in bringing in expert practical scholars and even getting rid of a few of the most horribly unqualified judges. But, in an out-of-control system with more than 600 judges, and growing, it’s going to take more than this “nibbling around the edges” to restore due process.

Third, there must be a new administrative organization to serve the courts, much like the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Currently, the unwieldy hiring process, inadequate courtroom space planning and acquisition, and unreliable, often-outdated technology are simply not up to the needs of a rapidly expanding court system.

EOIR basically has “institutionalized worst practices.” This includes limiting legitimate continuances and placing judges under “performance plans” designed to hustle cases through the system, with insufficient quality control, while producing “assembly line injustice.”

Fourth, I would repeal all of the so-called “Ashcroft & Barr reforms” at the BIA and put the BIA back on track to being a real appellate court, as the “Appellate Division” of a new independent Immigration
Court. A properly comprised and well-functioning Appellate Division should transparently debate and decide important, potentially controversial, issues, publishing dissenting opinions when appropriate.

All Appellate Judges should be required to vote and take a public position on all important precedent decisions. The Appellate Division must also “rein in,” rather than encourage and enable, those Immigration Courts with asylum grant rates so incredibly low as to make it clear that the generous dictates of the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca^[9] and the BIA itself in Mogharrabi^[10] are not being followed.

Well over a decade has passed since Professors Andy Schoenholtz, Phil Shrag, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales published their seminal work Refugee Roulette, documenting the large disparities among Immigration Judges in asylum grant rates.^[11] The BIA, the only body that can effectively establish and enforce due process within the Immigration Court system, has not adequately addressed this situation.

Indeed, among the still-serving Barr appointments to the BIA are Immigration Judges who deny asylum nearly 100% of the time and are the subject of complaints from the private bar and NGOs about bias, rudeness, and other unprofessional behavior. In other words, Barr implemented “worst practices and policies” at the BIA and in the Immigration Courts in an attempt to “snuff out” every remnant of fundamental fairness and due process for migrants. He and Sessions particularly targeted the most vulnerable asylum seekers and their families for unfair treatment.

Inexplicably, and outrageously, Garland has failed to “clean house” and bring in the necessary qualified experts to reshape the Immigration Courts in a due process image. In particular, Trump holdovers contain due to dominate the BIA and turn out lousy, anti-immigrant, anti-due process decisions, many of which are slammed by the Circuit Courts on review.

This is hardly “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all!” The sharp drop-off in Immigration Court asylum grant rates during the Trump Administration was impossible to justify in light of the generous standard for well-founded fear established by the Supreme Court in Cardoza-Fonseca and the BIA in Mogharrabi, the regulatory presumption of future fear arising out of past persecution that applies in many asylum cases,^[14] and the simple fact that there has been no worldwide diminution in the conditions causing refugees to flee. Indeed, they have gotten worse, in many cases.

The BIA’s chronic inability or unwillingness to aggressively stand up for the due process rights of asylum seekers and to enforce the fair and generous standards required by American law have robbed our Immigration Court System of credibility and public support, as well as ruined the lives of many who were denied protection that should have been granted. We need an Appellate Division that functions like a Federal Appellate Court and whose overriding mission is to ensure that the due process vision of the Immigration Courts becomes a reality rather than a cruel, intentionally unfulfilled promise.

Fifth, and finally, the Immigration Courts need better public service now! Without it, the courts are condemned to “files in the aisles,” misplaced filings, lost exhibits, and exorbitant courier charges. The public receives a level of service disturbingly below that of any other major court system.

That gives the Immigration Courts an “amateur night at the Bijou” aura totally inconsistent with the dignity of the process and the critical importance of the mission. Yet, after two decades of largely wasted effort, EOIR has failed to produce and implement a coherent, professional, user friendly court management system.

VI. GETTING INVOLVED

Bleak as this picture is, there is some good news. There are hundreds of dedicated and courageous lawyers out there who are former JLCs, interns, my former students, and those who have practiced before the Immigration Courts.

They form the nucleus what I call the “New Due Process Army!” You can be members, and I hope you will.

Thanks to an innovative new online program called VIISTA Villanova, developed by my friend Professor Michele Pistone, retirees who are not lawyers can train to become accredited representatives of recognized nonprofit organizations and actually represent asylum seekers in Immigration Court. Check it out on the internet.

VII. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in the process of describing my career, I have introduced you to one of America’s largest and most important, yet least understood and appreciated, court systems: The United States Immigration Court. Right now, it is, inexcusably, clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt America’s worst and most dysfunctional court system.

I have shared with you that court’s once-noble due process vision and how it has been viciously and cruelly trampled, first to advance a xenophobic, White Nationalist Qrestrictionist agenda and then because Garland has failed to do his duty.

I have also shared with you my ideas for effective court reform that would restore and elevate the due process vision.

My friends, both our Immigration Courts and our democratic republic are in a grave existential crisis. There are powerful and well-organized forces with a very dark, exclusive vision of America’s future: one that reverses generations of human progress and knowledge and actively promotes intolerance, misinformation, dehumanization, and deconstruction of our democratic institutions and fundamental human values.

It’s an intentionally “whitewashed” version of American history. One that denies the ingenuity, creativity, and forced labor of generations of African Americans who literally built our country! It disregards the courage, tenacity, skill, and strength of Asian Americans who built our Transcontinental Railroad and literally brought our nation together. And, of course, it dismisses the legions of Hispanic Americans who have been “making America great” since before “America was America,” with their culture, hard work, determination, and commitment to the “real” American dream, not the “whitewashed” version.

The future envisioned by these dark forces “x’es out” some of you in this room. Don’t let their darkness and willful ignorance be your future and that of generations to come.

Look around you at the real history and the real America. The future is ours! Don’t let the forces of darkness and a “past that never was” deny our destiny!

Now is the time to take a stand for Due Process, fundamental fairness, human rights, human dignity, and human decency! Join the New Due Process Army and fight to make equal justice under law and the constitutional and human rights of everyone a reality rather than an unfulfilled promise! Due process forever!

Thanks again for inviting me and for listening.

(04/19/23)

^[1] Matter of Lennon, 15 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1974), rev’d Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975).

^[2] Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996).

^[3] TRAC Immigration, “Representation is Key in Immigration Proceedings Involving Women with Children,” Feb. 18, 2015, available online at http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/377/.

^[4] “Immigration Director Calls for Overhaul of Broken System,” NBC Bay Area News, May 27, 2015, available online.

^[5] Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2004) (Evans, J., concurring).
^[6] Hon. Thomas G. Snow, “The gut-wrenching life of an immigration judge,” USA Today, Dec. 12, 2106, available online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/12/12/immigration-judge-gut-wrenching-decisions-column/95308118/

^[7] Julia Preston, “Lawyers Back Creating New Immigration Courts,” NY Times, Feb. 6, 2010.

^[8] INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

^[9] INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).

^[10] Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 4379(BIA 1987).

^[11] Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Andrew I. Schoenholtz, and Philip G. Schrag, Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 295 (2007);

^[12] All statistics are from the EOIR FY 2015 Statistics Yearbook, available online at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/fysb15/download,

^[13] See Emory Law/SPLC Observation Study Rips Due Process Violations At Atlanta Immigration Court — Why Is The BIA “Asleep At The Switch” In Enforcing Due Process? What Happened To The EOIR’s “Due Process Vision?” in immigrationcourtside.com, available online at http://immigrationcourtside.com/2017/03/02/emory-lawsplc-observation-study-rips-due-process-violations-at-atlanta-immigration-court-why-is-the-bia-asleep-at-the-switch-in-enforcing-due-process-what-happened-to-the-eoirs-due-proces/

^[14] See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).

^[15] See, e.g., Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) (denial of due process where IJ tried to bar the testimony of minor respondent by disqualifying him as an expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence). While the BIA finally stepped in with this precedent, the behavior of this Judge shows a system where some Judges have abandoned any discernable concept of “guaranteeing fairness and due process.” The BIA’s “permissive” attitude toward Judges who consistently deny nearly all asylum applications has allowed this to happen. Indeed the Washington Post recently carried a poignant story of a young immigration lawyer who was driven out of the practice by the negative attitudes and treatment by the Immigration Judges at the Atlanta Immigration Court. Harlan, Chico, “In an Immigration Court that nearly always says no, a lawyer’s spirit is broken,” Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2016, available online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-an-immigration-court-that-nearly-always-says-no-a-lawyers-spirit-is-broken/2016/10/11/05f43a8e-8eee-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html

How does this live up to the EOIR Vision of “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all?” Does this represent the best that American justice has to offer?

****************************

We need to keep challenging this mockery of justice from all angles until the system changes! Keep raising the EOIR farce with Dems at all levels — let them know that due process at EOIR is a “front burner” issue they can’t keep sweeping under the rug!

Help groups that are assisting individuals stuck in this bureaucratically-created “Hell on Earth.” The EOIR system “feeds” on (picks on) the unrepresented, uninformed, traumatized, and desperate! Help people get effective representation, win cases, save their lives, and bring systemic attention to the gross injustices being inflicted on a daily basis by this dysfunctional system!

We can’t wait for change from above from those who are indifferent to the rule of law, human lives, and our nation’s future! NDPA members need to get on the Immigration Bench and start changing culture and outcomes at the “retail level.” See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/04/15/%f0%9f%87%ba%f0%9f%87%b8%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%97%bd%f0%9f%91%a8%f0%9f%8f%be%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%a7%91%f0%9f%8f%bb%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f%f0%9f%91%a9%e2%9a%96%ef%b8%8f/

The “powers that be” at DOJ and the White House have little interest in leading and institutionalizing due process and excellence in judging at EOIR. But, neither are they positioned to prevent it from taking hold and growing on its own. That’s particularly true because Immigration Judges with practical expertise, courtroom skills, and a commitment to enforcing and vindicating individual rights ultimately “move” dockets more efficiently, motivate others to work together toward the ends of justice, and create fewer problems and embarrassments.

It’s unlikely that well-qualified, expert, due-processed-focused judges will be generating scathing public “kickbacks” from the Article IIIs. See, e.g., https://immigrationcourtside.com/2023/04/17/%f0%9f%a4%af2d-cir-savages-bias-anti-asylum-precedent-matter-of-y-i-m-27-i-n-dec-724-b-i-a-2019-phantom-discrepancies-lunch-over-lives-no-time-to-lis/.

Even the BIA can’t screw up cases they don’t get! At some point, even inept and largely tone-deaf Dem politicos and their bureaucratic minions start “warming” to proven solutions rather than recreating failures and flailing away with bone-headed “deterrence” gimmicks.

The BIA might eschew precedents favorable to individuals. But, thanks to litigation against EOIR by the NY Legal Assistance Group, unpublished decisions are more widely available now on the internet. Even at the IJ level, advocacy organizations have established online networks and banks of good decisions by Immigration Judges granting relief.

These recognize and credit outstanding, exemplary, courageous judicial performance in a way that EOIR never does. Perhaps more importantly, these “unheralded victories” provide “road maps” and inspire others! Also, every concrete example of how good judging and good lawyering, on both sides, can work at EOIR serves as a condemnation and rebuke of the Administration’s lack of concern about due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices at EOIR.

While the picture is undoubtedly ugly, we must keep “painting it” — with vivid colors — until complacent folks in the power structure (particularly tone-deaf Dems) can no longer look away, cover their eyes and ears, and deny the truth about the “third world” system they are disingenuously passing off as American “justice.”

The message is straightforward: Due process, fundamental fairness, and best practices work! For everyone! It’s past time for Garland and the rest of this Administration to “get their collective heads out of the sand” and start heeding and acting decisively on that truth!

Head in the Sand — Bury your head in the sand
Sander van der Wel from Netherlands
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0
It’s way past time for AG Merrick Garland and Biden politicos to change this highly ineffective approach to the EOIR due process disaster!

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-19-23

🤯BILL FRELICK @ THE HILL BLASTS BIDEN’S SCOFFLAW, ELITIST MISTREATMENT OF VENEZUELAN REFUGEES! — Welcome A Few Of The Well-To-Do, Give Others In Need The Screw! 🔩☠️ — Whatever Happened To The Refugee Act of 1980 & The Rule Of Law?

Too many Biden Administration Immigration officials appear to share Stephen Miller’s “upside down” view of the Statue of Liberty, in whole or in part! Why can’t they just follow the Refugee Act of 1980 and establish the robust, timely, generous legal approach to refugees and asylum seekers that best serves America?

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3704714-bidens-new-plan-no-help-for-desperate-venezuelan-refugees/

Refugees are people who flee for their lives. Escape from danger and abuse is usually chaotic, sudden, desperate. The Biden administration’s rollout of its new policy for Venezuelan refugees seems oblivious to this refugee reality and risks doing more harm than good.

. . . .

Announcing the program on Oct. 12, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said Venezuelans who enter irregularly “will be returned to Mexico.”

He didn’t mention — and appeared to disregard — U.S. law, which recognizes that anyone who arrives in the United States has the right to seek asylum “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” and “irrespective of such alien’s status.”

The impact of this announcement, “effective immediately,” was the summary return to Mexico without examination of their asylum claims of any Venezuelans entering the United States without authorization. Mexico has given no assurances that it will examine their refugee claims or provide asylum to those who fear return to Venezuela. In fact, the 4,050 Venezuelans expelled to Mexico since the implementation of the policy have been given visas valid for only one week and instructed to leave the country.

. . . .

With the Biden administration’s plan in effect, we might as well apply a blowtorch to Emma Lazarus’s welcoming poem at the foot of the Statue of Liberty and chisel in a new message: “Give me your well-rested, your well-to-do, your properly ticketed jet-setters yearning to breathe free.”

Bill Frelick is the refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch. Follow him on Twitter @BillFrelick.

************************

Read Bill’s complete op-ed act the link. Bill is one of many “practical experts” who would do a much better job than current Administration politicos in establishing and running a refugee and asylum program that would comply with the law, due process, human dignity, and America’s best interests. Why is Biden following the lead of his “clueless (and spineless) crew?”

The Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted and amended to deal with these situations! Robust, realistic refugee programs outside the U.S. should encourage many refugees to apply, be screened abroad, and admitted legally.

Other refugees arriving at our border can be promptly screened for credible fear. Those who fail that test can be summarily removed in accordance with existing law.

Those who pass that test should have access to counsel and receive timely, expert adjudications, with full appeal rights, under the generous “well founded fear” (1 in 10 chance) international standard established by the Refugee Act. See, e.g., INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca (Supremes); Matter of Mogharrabi (BIA).

It’s not “rocket science!” With dynamic, experienced refugee experts running the system and “practical scholars” with expertise in refugee processing and human rights laws serving as USCIS Asylum Officers and EOIR judges at the trial and appellate levels the legal system should be flexible enough to deal with all refugee situations in an orderly manner.

Many, probably a majority, of today’s asylum seekers should be granted asylum and admitted to the U.S. in full legal status, authorized to work, and on their way to green cards and eventual citizenship. Like those admitted from abroad, they could also be made eligible for certain resettlement assistance to facilitate integration into American communities who undoubtedly will benefit from their presence.

The more robust, realistic, and timely our overseas refugee programs become, the fewer refugees who will be forced to apply for asylum at our borders. Also, real, bold, dynamic humanitarian leadership, including accepting our fair share of refugees and asylees, could persuade other countries signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention to do likewise.

No insurmountable backlogs; no bewildered individuals wandering around the U.S. in limbo waiting for hearings that will never happen; few “no shows;” no long-term detention; no botched, biased “any reason to deny” decisions from unqualified officers and judges leading to years of litigation cluttering our legal system, no diverting Border Patrol resources from real law enforcement, no refugees huddled under bridges or sitting on street corners in Mexico!

It’s not “pie in the sky!” It’s the way our legal system could and should work with competent leadership and the very best available adjudicators and judges! It would support the proper, important role of refugees as an essential component of LEGAL IMMIGRATION, not an “exception” or “loophole” as racists and nativists like to falsely argue.

Instead of demonstrating the competence and integrity to use existing law to deal with refugee and asylum situations, the Biden Administration resorts to ad hoc political gimmicks. Essentially, the “RA80” has been repealed “administratively.” Effectively, we’re back to the “ad hoc” arbitrary approaches we used prior to ‘80 (which I worked on during the Ford Administration, and where I recollect I first heard of Bill Frelick).

I doubt that the late Senator Ted Kennedy, former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, and the rest of the group who helped shepherd the Refugee Act of 1980 through Congress would have thought that using Border Patrol Agents as Asylum Officers or packing the Immigration Courts and the BIA with judges prone to deny almost every asylum claim, regardless of facts or proper legal standards, was the “key to success!”

Congress specifically intended to eliminate the use of parole to deal with refugees except in extremely unusual circumstances, not present here. Biden’s latest ill-advised gimmick violates that premise. It’s totally inexcusable, as the refugee flow from Venezuela is neither new nor unpredictable. I was granting Venezuelan asylum cases before I retired in June 2016. Even then, there were legions of documentation, much of it generated by the USG, condemning the repressive regime in Venezuela and documenting the persecution of those who resisted!

A better AG would say “No” to these improper evasions of existing law. But, we have Merrick “What Me Worry” Garland! His botching of the Immigration Courts has been combined with a gross failure to stand up for equal justice for migrants (particularly those of color) across the board! America and refugees deserve better from our chief lawyer.

The Refugee Act of 1980 actually provides all the tools and flexibility the Biden Administration needs to establish order on the border and properly and fairly process refugees and asylees. Why won’t they use them?

Alfred E. Neumann — AG Merrick Garland has “looked the other way” while the Biden Administration flaunts applicable protection laws in and outside the U.S. He also runs a dysfunctional “court system” where anti-asylum bias, worst practices, poorly qualified decision makers, and grotesque inconsistencies undermine the legal rights of asylum seekers and other refugees. Doesn’t America deserve more competence from its top lawyer?
PHOTO: Wikipedia Commons

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

10-28-22

☠️🤮⚰️🏴‍☠️ MERCHANTS OF CHAOS & CORRUPTION: GOP HACKS, BAD RIGHTY JUDGES FORCE ILLEGAL CONTINUATION OF BOGUS TITLE 42 ABOMINATION! — Ending Title 42 Will Restore Order To The Border, Says Expert, Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr Of Cornell Law @ The Hill! — But, Wait, There’s Much More Needed, Say I!

Professor Stephen Yale-Loehr
Cornell Law

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/3575601-ending-title-42-wont-cause-immigration-mayhem-it-will-restore-order/

In 2015, a Ghanaian man who goes by the initials M.A. and his gay friend were brutally assaulted by a vigilante group in Accra, Ghana. In Ghana, homosexuality is illegal and carries a prison sentence of up to three years. M.A. was beaten with sticks before escaping through a window. His friend was killed. Fearing the group would find and kill him, he fled to Ecuador and made his way to the U.S. border, where he requested asylum. After being detained for nine months, he was released on bond and lived with a childhood friend in New York while he waited for his case to make it through the legal system.

M.A. clearly faced persecution, but an immigration judge denied his claim. I took M.A.’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2016 as part of the Cornell Law School’s asylum appeals clinic. It took M.A. four years to win asylum in America, but at least he was given the chance to apply in the first place.

Since March 2020, approximately 900,000 people — including over 215,000 parents and children — have been denied the ability to request asylum at all. They’re casualties of Title 42, a pandemic-related policy that paused nearly all asylum proceedings at the border. Some people argue the policy is preventing an influx of migrants. In fact, numbers are up despite the policy, and our refusal to process most of them has led to chaotic and dangerous conditions.

The United States has successfully managed ebbs and flows of asylum seekers for decades. There’s a system in place to manage an influx — and regardless of how hard immigration lawyers like me fight for them to stay, many will lose their case and be deported. Even so, we must let people try. It’s not only the right thing to do, it’s also guaranteed under international and domestic law. We signed a 1967 protocol to the U.N. Refugee Convention to protect the rights of refugees, and we have adopted it and codified it into U.S. asylum law. Right now, we’re violating those obligations. The longer we do, the weaker American rule of law looks to our global partners.

We must immediately reinstate due process for asylum seekers. And once this happens, we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.

. . . .

****************************

Read Steve’s complete op-ed in The Hill at the link.

I agree that “we must work to make the system more equitable and faster.” But, the answer can’t be just to hire more Immigration Judges in Garland’s dysfunctional, broken, and anti-asylum-biased “court” system. That would just speed the “deportation assembly line” and lead to even more injustice and grotesque inconsistencies.

According to TRAC, Immigration Judge “asylum denial rates” currently “range” from 5% to 100%. That’s a ridiculous, indefensible variation and a total perversion of the generous standard for granting asylum set forth by the Supremes in Cardoza-Fonseca and adopted by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, but seldom enforced or followed, particularly these days. Why this very obvious, totally solvable problem is still festering going on two years into a Democratic Administration that pledged to solve it is beyond me!

Enough of this nonsense, biased, “amateur night at the Bijou” mal-administration of the Immigration Courts at EOIR by Garland’s DOJ! No wonder folks are still complaining about “Refugee Roulette” more than a decade after it was written by my Georgetown Law colleagues Professors Phil Schrag, Andy Schoenholtz, and Jaya Ramji-Nogales (now an Associate Dean at Temple Law). Why not put one of THEM, or for that matter, Professor Yale-Loehr, in charge of kicking tail and cleaning out the deadwood at EOIR?

At a minimum Garland must:

Remove the holdover “Asylum Deniers Club” from the BIA and replace them with a real judge as Chair and new Appellate Immigration Judges who are widely recognized as “practical experts” with careers that have demonstrated superior scholarship in immigraton and human rights, an unswerving commitment to due process for individuals, and a passion for racial justice in our legal system;
Have the “New BIA” issue useful precedential guidance on how to document and grant valid asylum cases at both the Asylum Office and the Immigration Court, implement best practices, and identify and remove from future asylum adjudication those unqualified Immigration Judges who basically “make up” reasons to deny and can’t or won’t treat applicants fairly; and
Immediately replace with qualified expert judges those Immigration Judges on the “Southern Border docket” who can’t fairly adjudicate asylum cases.

Steve is totally correct about the need for Title 42 to go! But, Garland’s EOIR, particularly the BIA, is just as broken, counterproductive, and out of control as Title 42! In many ways, the illegal abrogation of the rule of law at the Southern Border has somewhat ”hidden” the larger problem that a dysfunctional and incapable EOIR poses for those who do manage to get a hearing!

Without a legitimate, totally reformed and significantly “re-populated” EOIR operating at the “retail level” of our justice system, there will be no rule of law and equal justice under law in America — for anyone!

Tell Garland you have had enough! The deadly and disorderly “EOIR Clown Show” has got to go! Now!

EOIR Clown Show Must Go T-Shirt — “EOIR Clown Show Must Go” T-Shirt Custom Design Concept

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

07-28-22

😎🗽ASYLUM GRANT RATES REBOUND MODESTLY UNDER BIDEN AFTER FOUR YEARS OF SYSTEMIC ARTIFICIAL WHITE NATIONALIST REPRESSION UNDER TRUMP, EVEN AS NUMBER OF ASYLUM DECISIONS RECEDES — Grant Rates Still Lag Far Behind FY 2012 When Well Over 50% Were Granted, Showing Inexcusable “Lost Decade” In EOIR’s Asylum Adjudications & Proper Legal Development Of Asylum Law!

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Asylum Grant Rates Climb Under Biden

Under the new Biden administration, asylum seekers are seeing greater success rates in securing asylum. While relief grant rates had fallen ever lower during the Trump years to just 29 percent in FY 2020, they rose to 37 percent in FY 2021 under President Biden.

However, with the ongoing partial Court shutdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a sustained drop in the number of asylum decisions. Even with the greater odds of success, the number of asylum seekers who were granted asylum during FY 2021 was only 8,349 with an additional 402 granted another type of relief in place of asylum. In sheer numbers, this was only about half the number of asylum seekers who had been granted relief during FY 2020, the final year of the Trump administration.

The improved asylum grant rates during FY 2021 began only after the new Biden administration took office at the end of January 2021. Tracking asylum grant rates month-by-month rather than year-by-year, the increase in asylum grant rates under President Biden for the last quarter of FY 2021 (July-September 2021) was even larger: asylum seekers’ success rates climbed to 49 percent. Not only was this much higher than at any period during the Trump years, the asylum success rate was up five percentage points from 44 percent during the last quarter of the Obama administration.

Historically, asylum seekers have had greater success in the Immigration Court for affirmative as compared with defensive asylum cases. At one time, the majority of asylum applications decided by Immigration Judges were affirmative cases referred by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, most asylum applications today are considered defensive applications and filed in response to the Department of Homeland Security initiating removal proceedings in Immigration Court.

Asylum seekers who are represented by an attorney – as most are in affirmative asylum cases – have greatly increased odds of winning asylum or other forms of relief from deportation. For all Court decisions in FY 2021, nearly nine out of ten (89%) asylum seekers in affirmative and defensive cases were represented. This was clearly a vital factor in improving overall asylum success rates since in the prior year, FY 2020, representation rates were 80 percent or nine (9) percentage points lower.

Read the full report – the first in a two-part series – to obtain many more details about trends in Immigration Court asylum decisions over the past two decades at:

https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/667

The impact of gender, age, language, and nationality will be covered in the second report in this two-part series. Readers need not wait to probe these and many more details on asylum decisions using TRAC’s free web query tool — now updated through September 2021 and expanded to cover gender, age, and language details. As before users can also drill in to see how decisions vary geographically, by state, Immigration Court, and hearing location. Go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/asylum/

To examine a variety of Immigration Court data, including asylum data, the backlog, MPP, and more now updated through September 2021, use TRAC’s Immigration Court tools here:

https://trac.syr.edu/imm/tools/

If you want to be sure to receive a notification whenever updated data become available, sign up at:

https://tracfed.syr.edu/cgi-bin/tracuser.pl?pub=1

Follow us on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/tracreports

or like us on Facebook:

https://facebook.com/tracreports

TRAC is self-supporting and depends on foundation grants, individual contributions and subscription fees for the funding needed to obtain, analyze and publish the data we collect on the activities of the US Federal government. To help support TRAC’s ongoing efforts, go to:

https://trac.syr.edu/cgi-bin/sponsor/sponsor.pl

David Burnham and Susan B. Long, co-directors

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse

Syracuse University

601 E. Genesee Street

Syracuse, NY 13202-3117

315-443-3563

trac@syr.edu

https://trac.syr.edu

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse is a nonpartisan joint research center of the Whitman School of Management (https://whitman.syr.edu) and the Newhouse School of Public Communications (https://newhouse.syr.edu) at Syracuse University. If you know someone who would like to sign up to receive occasional email announcements and press releases, they may go to https://trac.syr.edu and click on the E-mail Alerts link at the bottom of the page. If you do not wish to receive future email announcements and wish to be removed from our list, please send an email to trac@syr.edu with REMOVE as the subject.

**********************************

Here’s some historical perspective. When the Refugee Act of 1980 was enacted, the INS took the position that the standard of proof for asylum was the same as the “traditional” standard for the pre-existing relief of withholding of deportation. That was a “clear probability,” of persecution, which means “more likely than not.”

Because this was a high standard that had been “over-rigorously applied” to deny almost all withholding cases (refugees from communism — Other Than Chinese — were about the only folks who had any chance of being granted withholding, and that was rare) the asylum grant rate remained very low for the first six years following enactment of the Refugee Act. In 1987, that grant rate was only approximately 11%.

In 1987, the Supreme Court decided INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). (As the Acting General Counsel/Deputy General Counsel of INS, I had helped the Solicitor General prepare and articulate the Government’s position. My future Immigration Court friend and colleague, Judge Dana Leigh Marks, then known as Dana Marks Keener, argued for Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. I sat at counsel’s table with the “SG’s Team” during the oral argument before the Court. Shortly thereafter, I left INS to go into private practice at Jones Day.)

To the surprise of many of us, the Supremes soundly rejected the INS position and ruled in favor of Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca. The Court said that a “well-founded fear” of persecution was intended to be a much more generous standard, significantly less than a probability and including a “10% chance” of persecution.

Thereafter, the BIA issued a precedent implementing the “well founded fear” standard as “significantly less than a probability” — an “objectively reasonable” fear of persecution — in Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 1987). Mogharrabi also stood out as one of the very few BIA precedents up to that time actually granting, rather than denying asylum on appeal. (When I returned to Government service in 1995 as Chairman of the BIA, I was a “true believer” in making the as yet “unfulfilled promise of Cardoza and Mogharrabi” a reality! That’s still at the top of my “Due Process Forever Wish List!”)

In the immediate aftermath, while “parroting” the Cardoza and Mogharrabi generous standards, most Immigration Judges and BIA panels appeared to actually continue to apply the more restrictive “probability” or “more likely than not” standard. But, over time, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and sometimes even Board Members (most often in dissent) began “calling out” EOIR Judges for what appeared to be an intentional misapplication of the asylum standard.

A regulation change to provide a “rebuttable presumption of future persecution” arising out of past persecution also helped. That is, once the Article III Courts forced EOIR judges to actually apply, rather than ignore or disingenuously “work around,” the regulatory presumption. See generally, Matter of Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (BIA 1989) (particularly the concurring opinion by Judge Michael J. Heilman) for the “Bush I Era” historical impetus for the past persecution regulations. Ironically, the BIA sometimes had trouble “following up” on the generous teachings of their own Chen precedent.

Additionally, Judge Marks and other trained asylum experts from outside the Government who joined the Immigration Court prior to 2001 began actually applying the correct standard to grant asylum. (By stark contrast, Sessions and Barr “stacked and packed” the BIA with some of the most virulent anti-asylum judges in America while appointing far too many individuals with no immigration or asylum expertise whatsoever to be Immigration Judges at the trial level. The idea was to “build the deportation railroad” 🚂 with the BIA and Immigration Court as “mere whistle stops,” at best.)

Consequently, over time, between 1987 and 2013, there was a slow but steady increase in asylum grant rates as Courts and some Immigration Judges and BIA Members pushed EOIR to finally “live up” to the more generous Cardoza/Mogharrabi standard. A number of those who helped this push for justice for asylum seekers are now members of our “Round Table of Former Immigration Judges!”🛡⚔️

The world certainly was a dangerous place for refugees in the years leading up to FY 2012, when asylum grants actually reached their “high water mark” of well over 50%. But, it has gotten even more dangerous over the past decade.

That, until recently, asylum grant rates had steadily declined since FY 2012 while conditions for refugees continued to worsen shows that the EOIR system is largely about politically driven enforcement manipulation rather than a test of reality or a fair, efficient, competent, and legally sound approach to asylum law.

The modest but welcome rise in asylum approval rates under Biden happened notwithstanding a BIA that continues to churn out unduly and intentionally restrictive precedents and to botch basic asylum decisions on a regular basis! It also occurred under an Attorney General who has largely “looked the other way” and exhibited indifference as the BIA (composed mostly of “holdover” Trump-era appointees or “survivors” of the Trump regime) continues to abuse asylum seekers.

Lawyers and applicants who have kept fighting for their rights in a system designed to railroad and demoralize them deserve much credit for the improved results and for constantly battling to expose the “Garland BIA’s” gross deficiencies to the Article III Circuit Courts. That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about!

Just think what the asylum grant rate might look like with a better BIA of independent expert judges who consistently provided positive precedents and guidance on asylum law and consistently enforced them against those Immigration Judges who have improperly and unethically created “Asylum Free Zones” in some jurisdictions!

Think of how many lives could be saved with better judges at the trial, and particularly the appellate, levels of EOIR! Backlogs and unnecessary litigation would also begin to decrease — without bogus and wasteful “enforcement gimmicks” like Garland’s “Dedicated Dockets” designed and implemented from above by disconnected, sometimes clueless, bureaucrats as a toxic example of backlog-building “Aimless Docket Reshuffling!”

Not rocket science! 🚀 Too bad nobody at Garland’s DOJ appears to care much about human lives and taxpayer dollars going down the drain on an unfair, backlogged, and stunningly dysfunctional asylum system at EOIR and on the Southern Border. ☹️

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

PWS

11-10-21

👍🏼UNHCR welcomes US decision to restore protections from gang and domestic violence

UNHCR welcomes US decision to restore protections from gang and domestic violence

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, welcomes the U.S. government’s decision announced 16 June to reverse legal rulings introduced several years ago that effectively made people forced to flee life-threatening domestic and gang violence in their home countries ineligible from being able to seek safety in the United States.

“These rulings have put the lives of vulnerable people at risk,” said Matthew Reynolds, UNHCR Representative to the United States and the Caribbean, after the U.S. Justice Department announced that the legal rulings known as Matter of A-B- and Matter of L-E-A- had been vacated in their entirety.

“Today’s decisions will give survivors fleeing these types of violence a better chance of finding safety in the United States and being treated with the basic compassion and dignity that every single person deserves. UNHCR welcomes this important humanitarian step,” Reynolds said.

UNHCR, he added, also welcomes the U.S. administration’s commitment to bringing its asylum system into line with international standards and specifically to writing new rules on determining membership of a “particular social group,” one of five grounds spelled out in the 1951 Refugee Convention defining who is entitled to international protection as a refugee.

“In keeping with international standards, a simple and broad definition of ‘particular social group’ is an essential part of a fair and efficient asylum system,” Reynolds said, adding that UNHCR stands ready and willing to support the asylum review and rulemaking process in any way requested by the U.S. government.

ENDS

This Press Release is available here.

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency: 70 years protecting people forced to flee.

—

****************

The unethical and illegal “bogus precedents” issued by Sessions and Barr have cost lives! Much of the damage done to date is irreparable. So is the continuing damage resulting from the Biden Administration’s failure to reopen ports of entry to legal asylum seekers.

🆘A functioning asylum system at ports of entry, establishing a viable refugee program in or in the region of the Northern Triangle, and a wholly reformed, due process oriented EOIR with real judges who understand how to fairly and efficiently evaluate and grant asylum under the very generous standard enunciated by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi but never in fact uniformly applied in practice will reduce the number of individuals crossing the border between ports of entry to seek refuge. We also need the help of NGOs in providing representation to those arriving and resettlement assistance for those “screened in” for hearings.

Right now, we have no legal asylum system at our border despite very clear statutory language commanding it. That’s a BIG problem that must be addressed immediately! Clearly, the Biden Administration must cooperate with and seek help from human rights experts now outside Government including the UNHCR.

As I’ve said before many times, expert human rights leadership needs to be brought into their Biden Administration to “kick some tail,” eradicate incompetence and bias, and fix EOIR and the asylum system.

The NDPA needs to keep the pressure building for more immediate, common sense reforms to our asylum system and a legitimate EOIR of experts who function independently from DHS enforcement and politicos.

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

06-17-21

☠️END MISOGYNY 🤮@ EOIR, NOW! — Gorelick & Miller-Muro Are Right, But Abused Refugee Women’s Lives⚰️ Can’t Wait For Congress! — Judge Garland Must Bring Justice ⚖️ To Dysfunctional EOIR Now! — It’s Not Rocket Science! 🚀

Woman Tortured — Is this Judge Merrick Garland’s Vision Of Justice For Refugee Women @ EOIR? If not, what’s he doing about it?
Amazing StoriesArtist Unknown, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Jamie Gorelick
American Lawyer & Public Servant
PHOTO: Creative Commons

Layli Miller-Muro
Founder & Executive Director, Tahirih Justice Center
PHOTO: Creative Commons

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/07/us-asylum-law-must-protect-women/

Jamie Gorelick is a partner at Wilmer Hale. Layli Miller-Muro is founder and CEO of the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that serves immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. Both were involved in Fauziya Kassindja’s asylum case in 1996: Gorelick was deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration and Miller-Muro was Kassindja’s student legal counsel, representing her in immigration court and at the Board of Immigration Appeals.

With the issue of migration in the news again, a glaring omission in U.S. asylum law should get more attention: The statute does not name gender as a possible ground for protection.

To be granted asylum in the United States, an applicant must be facing persecution by their government or someone that government cannot or will not control. The applicant must show that the persecution is on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in “a particular social group.” Persecution on account of gender is not included.

This makes sense when considering that the global treaty that obliges state parties to protect refugees was adopted 70 years ago, in 1951, when the legal rights of women were barely recognized. The treaty — called the Refugee Convention — says that countries have an obligation to protect those who have no choice but to flee or risk death in the face of injustice.

It is unsurprising that the needs of women facing persecution were not considered in 1951. It is also not surprising — though it is disappointing — that Congress wrote this outdated framework into the Refugee Act of 1980.

In the mid-1990s, some light was shined on this problem. Fauziya Kassindja, a 17-year-old from Togo, sought protection both from forced polygamous marriage to a much older man and from female genital mutilation. She was granted asylum after proving that she was a member of a “particular social group” — and thus covered by the Refugee Act. We were both involved in this case, which helped to crack open the door for women to argue that gender-based asylum claims should be granted under the “particular social group” category in the statute.

But progress for women has been slow and painful under a statute that does not explicitly recognize gender-based persecution. It took 14 years for the United States to grant asylum to a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who endured unspeakable brutalization by her husband, a former soldier. Regulations proffered by then-Attorney General Janet Reno in 2000 to protect women under the social-group category were never finalized, leaving women in the lurch. So much variance exists in the likelihood of success from court to court that filing a claim can feel like playing Russian roulette.

. . . .

This situation has been made much worse in recent years. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, decades of progress were nearly wiped out by the stroke of a pen. Because the highest immigration court is part of the Justice Department, he was able to single-handedly reverse key legal precedents favorable to women’s claims and issue guidance to judges limiting gender-based asylum. As a result of these changes, the safety of many immigrant women hangs by a thread. The Refugee Act urgently needs to be changed to clearly protect women who would otherwise meet the stringent requirements for asylum.

. . . .

***************************

Read the full op-ed at the link.

The Rest of the Story

I wrote the decision granting asylum in Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996). Jamie Gorelick was the Deputy Attorney General during part of my tenure (1995-2001) as Chair of the BIA. Layli Miller-Muro worked for me as a BIA Attorney-Advisor for a time.

Following Kasinga, some of my colleagues and I put our careers on the line to vindicate the statutory, constitutional, and human rights of refugee women who suffered egregious persecution in the form of domestic violence. One of those cases was Rodi Alvarado (a/k/a “Ms. R-A-“), where we dissented from our majority colleagues’ misguided denial of protection to her following grotesque, clearly gender-based persecution. Matter of R-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 906, 928 (BIA 1999) (Guendelsberger,Board Member, dissenting with Schmidt, Chair, Villageliu, Rosenberg, and Moscato, Board Members). Alvarado had properly been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, building on Kasinga, before being unjustly stripped of protection by the majority of our colleagues.

The incorrect decision in R-A- was vacated by Attorney General Reno. Finally, after a 14-year struggle, Ms. Alvarado was granted asylum in an unpublished, unappealed decision based largely on the rationale of the dissenters. In the meantime, the “gang of four” dissenters (minus Moscato) had been exiled from the BIA by Attorney General John Ashcroft, assisted by his sidekick, Kris Kobach (the infamous “Ashcroft Purge” @ the BIA).

In 2014, in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), the BIA finally recognized domestic violence based on gender as a form of persecution. They did so without acknowledging the pioneering work of the R-A- dissenters 15 years earlier. By this time, domestic violence as a basis for asylum had become so well established that it wasn’t even contested by the DHS (although, curiously, the case was remanded by the BIA for additional findings on issues that were beyond reasonable dispute)!

In the meantime, at the Arlington Immigration Court, my colleagues and I had consistently granted domestic violence asylum cases based on a DHS policy position known as the “Martin Memo,” after former INS General Counsel and later DHS Deputy General Counsel Professor David Martin (who, incidentally, argued the Kasinga case before the BIA in 1996 — famous gender-based asylum expert Professor Karen Musalo argued for Kasinga). Most of those grants were unappealed by DHS. Indeed, many were so compelling and well documented that DHS joined Respondents’ counsel in moving for asylum grants following brief testimony. These cases actually became staples on my “short docket,” promoting efficiency, fairness, and becoming one of the few “working parts” of the Immigration Courts.

Tahirih Justice Center, founded by, Layli Miller-Muro, was counsel in some of these cases and served as an essential resource and inspiration for attorneys preparing domestic violence cases. It also functioned as a training center for some of the “new all-stars” of the New Due Process Army. For a time, the progress in recognizing, documenting, and vindicating the rights and humanity of female asylum seekers, at least in the Arlington Immigration Court, was one of the few shining examples of the courts, DHS, and the private/NGO bar working cooperatively to improve the quality and efficiency of justice in Immigration Court. It should have been a model for all other courts!

Sadly, in 2018, Attorney General Jeff “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, unilaterally intervened and undid two decades of progress for women refugees of color with his grossly incorrect and disingenuous decision in Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 2018), overruling Matter of A-R-C-G- on completely specious grounds while intentionally misconstruing the facts of record. Significantly, Sessions’s intervention was over the objection of DHS, which had expressed continuing agreement with the A-R-C-G- framework for deciding domestic violence cases.

“Hanging by a thread,” as stated by the op-ed, unfortunately vastly understates the war on the legal rights and humanity of asylum-seeking women, particularly targeting women at color, being carried out at EOIR today. This effort is led by a BIA that has long since lost its way, basically “weaponizing” the legal distortions and vicious, openly misogynist dicta set forth by Sessions in Matter of A-B- to dehumanize, degrade, and deport vulnerable refugee women.

In numerous cases, the BIA actually intervenes at ICE’s request to reverse proper grants by courageous and scholarly Immigration Judges below. It’s all about churning out final orders of removal as a deterrent – a vile, disgusting, perverted “philosophy” advanced by Sessions, Barr, and Whitaker, and not yet effectively rejected by Judge Garland.

Judge Merrick Garland — Judge Merrick B. Garland
Official White House Photo
Public Realm

Yeah, I’ve read about the Judge’s “difficulties” in getting his “A-Team” on board at the DOJ. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/07/us-asylum-law-must-protect-women/. So what!

Judge Garland is in the job because he is not only an experienced DOJ senior executive, but a long-serving Federal Judge who was admired for his sense of justice. It shouldn’t take an army of “spear-carriers” and subordinates for a true leader of Judge Garland’s experience to seize control of the situation and start getting the “ship of justice” sailing in the right direction. Judge Garland’s political and bureaucratic travails are of no moment to, and pale in comparison with, the additional, unconscionable abuse and “Dred Scottification” being heaped on refugee women and their courageous representatives by his dysfunctional and unconstitutional “star chamber courts.”

“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”

Trial By Ordeal — Woman Being “Tried By Ordeal”
17th Century Woodcut
Public Realm
Source: Ancient Origins Website
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/trial-ordeal-life-or-death-method-judgement-004160

Please, Pick Up The Phone & Your Pen, Judge Garland!

Not rocket science, Judge Garland! All it takes is six calls and a signature to start ending misogyny at EOIR and achieving racial justice in the America.

First three calls: Call Judge Dana Marks (SF), Judge Noel Brennan (NYC), Judge Amiena Khan (Newark) and tell them that they are detailed to the positions of Acting EOIR Director, Acting BIA Chair, and Acting Chief Immigration Judge, respectively. (The first position is vacant and the other two positions are filled by Senior Executives subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion. The current Acting Director already has an SES position to which she could return, or she could be re-installed as the
EOIR General Counsel, a job for which she is well-qualified.)

Fourth call: Call the the head of of the Justice Management Division (JMD). Ask her/him to find suitable DOJ placements for the two current incumbents mentioned above and all current members of the BIA (all of whom are either SES or “Management Officials” subject to transfer at the AG’s discretion) in other DOJ positions at the same pay level where they can do no further damage to our justice system. Ask him/her to arrange for the temporary appointment of former DOJ employees Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro as Acting Appellate Judges at the BIA.

Calls five and six: Call Jamie Gorelick and Layli Miller-Muro. Thank them, tell them you agree with their Post op-ed, and ask (or beg) them to come to DOJ on a temporary basis to help Judges Marks, Brennan, and Khan solve the current problems with asylum adjudications and take the necessary actions to get EOIR functioning as a legitimate, independent, due-process-oriented court system. In other words, turn their cogent op-ed into a “real life action plan” for restoring due process, humanity, and common sense to the Immigration Courts, with a focus on the now totally unprofessional, wrong-headed mis-adjudication of asylum cases.

Finally, sign this order:

All precedent decisions issued to EOIR by former Attorneys General Sessions and Barr, and former Acting Attorneys General Whitaker and Wilkinson, and all their pending actions certifying cases to themselves are hereby vacated. All cases shall be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration. In the reconsideration process, the BIA shall, among other things, honor the letter and spirit of these binding precedents:

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)

Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987)

Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1996)

In the reconsideration process the BIA shall also be guided by the principle of “through teamwork, innovation, and best practices, become the world’s best tribunals, guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”

See, it’s not that complicated. By the end of this year, women will get the protection to which they legally are entitled from the Immigration Courts. We all will see dramatic changes that will lead the way toward “equal justice for all’” in America and become a blueprint for the Immigration Courts to fulfill the above-stated principle.

It would also be a far better legacy for Judge Garland to be viewed as the “father of the fair, independent, expert Immigration Courts,” than to be remembered as running the most dysfunctional, unfair, and misogynistic court system in America, his current path. And, as an extra added bonus, Judge Garland, you will have a great start on building a premier source of “battle tested,” due-process-oriented, progressive jurists for future Article III appointments!

It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

PWS

04-09-21

🤡CLOWN COURT REPORT: “Judging Lite” — Squeezed By A Bigoted AG Who Usurped Their Role While Driving Them To Rubber Stamp More Mindless Denials, The Bigger (Not Better) BIA’s Intellectual Output Shrinks To The Size Of A Pea, According To “The Asylumist,” Jason Dzubow

https://www.asylumist.com/2020/07/15/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bia-ing-ten-year-anniversary-edition/

Way back in 2010, I did a blog post about the Board of Immigration Appeals, where I complained that the Board issues too few decisions and does not provide enough guidance to Immigration Judges. Ten years later, things are no better. In fact, based on the available data, the Board is publishing even fewer decisions these days than it did back in the late aughts. Here, we’ll take a look at the situation in 2010, and then review where things stand now.

Before we get to that, we have to answer a preliminary question: What is the Board of Immigration Appeals? According to the BIA Practice Manual—

The Board of Immigration Appeals is the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. The Board is responsible for applying the immigration and nationality laws uniformly throughout the United States. Accordingly, the Board has been given nationwide jurisdiction to review the orders of Immigration Judges and certain decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and to provide guidance to the Immigration Judges, DHS, and others, through published decisions. The Board is tasked with resolving the questions before it in a manner that is timely, impartial, and consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations, and to provide clear and uniform guidance to Immigration Judges, DHS, and the general public on the proper interpretation and administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations.

Having completed their one published decision for the year, some BIA Board Members take a well-earned rest.

In essence, the BIA is supposed to be the Supreme Court of immigration law. But because the Board issues so few published decisions, it is not fulfilling its duties to provide guidance or ensure that laws are applied uniformly throughout the country. This is not a recent problem.

If you look back at the data from a decade ago, you will see that in 2007, the BIA decide a total of 35,394 cases and had 45 published decisions. In 2008, it decided 38,369 cases and published 33 decisions, and in 2009, it decided 33,103 cases and published 34 decisions. This means that for every 1,000 cases the Board decides, it publishes about 1 case. Looked at another way, during 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Board had about 15 Members (judges on the BIA are called Board Members). This means that in its most prolific year (2007), each Board Member would have had to publish three cases. I’m told that publishing a case is a real production, but even so, three cases per year? That seems pretty weak. The not-very-surprising result is that the Board is not providing the guidance that Immigration Judges need, and this contributes to a situation where different adjudicators are interpreting the law in widely inconsistent ways.

Fast forward 10 year and the situation is no better. In FY2016, the Board decided 33,241 cases and in FY2017, it decided 31,820 cases. In each year, the Board published just 27 decisions. In FY2018, the Board decided 29,788 cases and published 38 decisions, and in FY2019, the BIA published 22 decisions (EOIR has not released data about the number of cases adjudicated by the Board in FY2019). Indeed, in 2018 and 2019, the situation is even worse than these numbers suggest. That’s because in 2018, of the 38 published BIA decisions, 15 were actually decided by the Attorney General (meaning only 23 were decided by the BIA). In 2019, the AG published six cases, meaning that the Board itself published a paltry 16 decision, or–given the expanded number of Board Members–less than one published decision per Member.

Let’s digress for one moment to discuss the difference between an Attorney General decision and a BIA decision. The BIA derives its decision-making authority from the Attorney General. This means that the AG has power to decide immigration appeals, but he has given that authority to the specialists on the Board, who presumably know more about immigration law than their boss. However, because decision-making power ultimately comes from the AG, he can “certify” a case to himself and then issue a decision, which has precedential authority over Immigration Judges and over the Board itself. This means that if the Board issues a decision that the AG does not like, he can change it. Prior to the Trump Administration, AGs generally deferred to the Board and rarely certified cases to themselves for decisions. In the last two years of the Obama Administration, for example, the AG issued a total of three published decisions, two in 2015 and one in 2016, as compared to 21 AG decisions in 2018 and 2019 (to be fair, the Trump Administration did not issue any AG decisions in 2017). The main reason for the AG to issue decisions is to more forcefully implement the current Administration’s immigration agenda. Many who work in the field oppose this type of politicization of the immigration law, and organizations such as the National Association of Immigration Judges (the judges’ union) have been pushing for an independent court system.

Aside from politicization of the law, one result of the AG’s more active role in issuing decisions has been to sideline the BIA. I imagine this is not good for morale. Essentially, the “Supreme Court of Immigration Law” has been relegated to deciding unpublished decisions, which contribute little to improving the overall practice of law.

In any event, it has always surprised me how few decisions the BIA publishes. Chapter 1 of the BIA Practice Manual provides: “Decisions selected for publication meet one or more of several criteria, including but not limited to: the resolution of an issue of first impression; alteration, modification, or clarification of an existing rule of law; reaffirmation of an existing rule of law; resolution of a conflict of authority; and discussion of an issue of significant public interest.” Frankly, it is difficult to believe that fewer than one case in one thousand satisfies these criteria. As I wrote in 2010–

Although it might be more work over the short term, if the Board published more frequently, Immigration Judge decisions would become more consistent–creating less work for the BIA over the long term. It would also make life easier for the federal courts of appeals, saving government resources. Finally–and most important from my point of view–it would create more certainty and predictability for immigrants and their families.

All this remains true. But after three years of the Trump Administration appointing Board Members, many of whom are considered hostile to immigrants, perhaps now is not the time to complain about too few published decisions. Maybe. But I still think there exists a desperate need for guidance and consistency, and even the “unfriendly” Board Members are more inclined to follow the law than our current AG. In addition, there are many mundane, non-political issues that simply need deciding (such as this recent BIA decision). Despite the more hostile make-up of the Board, I still believe–as I believed ten years ago–that the BIA should embrace its role as “the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws” and publish more decisions.

***********************

Careful what you ask for, Jason! While you might see some difference between Billy the Bigot and the current BIA, I haven’t been able to find one. When, indeed, was the last time that a respondent “won” a case in a BIA precedent that wasn’t then certified to the AG for reversal?

On the other hand, I do run across some correctly decided “winners” among the eclectic mix of unpublished BIA decisions that comes across my “Courtside e-desk.” Therefore, I go with Mies van der Rohe on this one: the less frequently we hear from the BIA on precedents the more justice there will be for respondents.

That’s particularly true because the famous “BIA Single-Judge Panel” will sometimes issue inconsistent decisions, one of which actually gets it right and favors the respondent. Inevitably, these days, when such “conflicts” go into the precedent making machine, the respondent always loses. Faced with the choice of consistently sentencing respondents to death or saving a few lives now and then, I’d definitely go with the latter.

Actually, I’d argue that the only legitimate purpose of the Immigration Courts, including the BIA, is to save some lives that need saving. If, as Barr seems to think, it’s just a device to insure everyone gets removed and the decisions are “teed up” for OIL to best defend them on review, who needs it? Spend the money on something more useful — like cemetery plots for all the refugees and asylum seekers we wrongfully turn away.

It’s hardly surprising to me that a “maliciously incompetent” (originally your term, I believe) regime that has more than doubled the number of Immigration Judges while tripling the backlog would produce fewer precedents with more BIA judges. With the Trump/Sessions/Barr DOJ/EOIR kakistocracy, more judges clearly produce more backlog and fewer precedents.

There was a time, my friend, in the “ancient past,” more than two decades ago, when a supposedly “too big to function” BIA issued more than fifty (50) precedents in a year. Not only that, but many were hotly contested, “cutting edge” issues that the BIA took on without being “ordered” by the Courts of Appeals or the DOJ to do so.

The vast majority of those decisions were issued by the full en banc BIA with each judge actually recording a vote so they public knew exactly who stood where on each issue. There also were plenty of separate dissenting and concurring opinions.

Lo and behold, some of those dissents in favor of a fairer assessment of credibility, a more faithfully generous interpretation of asylum law, per Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi, and a better framework for “categorical analysis” of criminal provisions, eventually found favor with the reviewing Courts of Appeals.

When I taught Refugee Law & Policy at Georgetown Law, I used Aleinikoff & Martin, et al, Forced Migration as a text. A remarkable number of the BIA precedents from that particular era found their way into the book. I, of course, had to “get over” the fact that my buddies, Alex and David, had edited out some of my best dissents from the textbook versions. No matter, I insisted that my students read the “full text” so they could see what a “better answer” to the issue might have been! Many of those former students, in turn, have formed the nucleus of the “New Due Process Army!”

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

PWS

07-22-20

OUR IMPLEMENTATION OF ASYLUM LAW HAS ALWAYS BEEN FLAWED — NOW, TRUMP HAS SIMPLY ABROGATED THE REFUGEE ACT OF 1980, WITHOUT LEGISLATION — But, Led By The Complicit Supremes, Federal Appeals Courts Seemingly Have Lost Interest In Protecting Human Rights, Saving Lives, & Holding The Regime Accountable — America No Longer Has A Functioning Asylum & Refugee Protection System

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/21/coronavirus-cant-be-an-excuse-continue-president-trumps-assault-asylum-seekers/

By Yael Schacher in WashPost:

The coronavirus has crowded out many policy debates. But in one area, immigration, it is fusing with the Trump administration’s broader agenda.

Using covid-19 as a cover, the administration is making its most overt move yet to eliminate the right to seek asylum in the United States. Officials claim that because of coronavirus, beginning March 21, they swiftly can return or repatriate asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. This unprecedented move violates U.S. and international law and may actually exacerbate the spread of covid-19 at the border. It also betrays the core promise of the 1980 Refugee Act, signed 40 years ago this week.

With this law the United States belatedly accepted the definition of a refugee established by the 1951 U.N. Convention and 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees. The Act passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and made resettling refugees from abroad a part of the nation’s immigration policy. But the Act also accorded people fleeing persecution a chance to seek asylum if they arrived at U.S. borders or already were in the United States.

The law established that people could seek asylum regardless of their immigration status or mode of entry and prohibited U.S. authorities from sending asylum seekers to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened. It is crucial to remember this right now, given the all-out assault on the U.S. asylum system by the Trump administration, which began even before the coronavirus. The proposed new ban on asylum that would turn back asylum seekers will endanger the lives of even more refugees and further jeopardize our collective public health by sending people to live on the Mexican side of the border where they will lack adequate shelter and care and where there is no way to prevent the spread of coronavirus. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has written, turning away asylum seekers would send them into “orbit” in search of a refuge and, as such, may contribute to the further spread of the disease.

Before the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, the United States was violating the human rights of asylum seekers, in particular the thousands of Haitians who arrived in Florida by boat. Instead of having their asylum cases heard they were systemically detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, denied due process in the immigration courts and threatened with deportation to the persecution they had fled.

Haitian leaders and refugee advocates in New York and Florida protested against this treatment and, in May 1979, sued the government in federal court in Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti. In his 1980 decision, Judge James Lawrence King (a Nixon-appointee) excoriated the U.S. government for violating the rights of Haitians and prejudging their claims. As King wrote, the evidence presented at trial was “both shocking and brutal, populated by the ghosts of individual Haitians — including those who have been returned from the United States — who have been beaten, tortured, and left to die in Haitian prisons.”

King also referred to convincing evidence provided by Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights (now Human Rights First) that asylum seekers were mistreated both by U.S. immigration authorities and upon return to Haiti.

As the litigation was going on, members of Congress worked on the language of the Refugee Act. Amnesty and the Lawyers Committee suggested to then-Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-N.Y.) language be added specifically to prevent people from being returned, as Haitians had been, and safeguard the right to seek asylum upon reaching anywhere in the United States. Without such a safeguard written into the law, the right to seek asylum would not be secure outside of South Florida, where Judge King’s ruling applied. Grounding the right to seek asylum in a statute also makes it harder to limit federal court review of executive branch policies that violate it.

Holtzman adopted Amnesty’s language into the House version of the bill, and it became the first provision of section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Holtzman’s language explicitly provided for the right to seek asylum not only to those who came by sea but also to those who crossed a land border or arrived at a border port of entry. Unfortunately, Holtzman did not accept the Lawyers Committee’s recommendation that the Refugee Act also include “guidelines” for determining who would be eligible for asylum and how they would prove it. It left these procedures to the executive branch.

Nonetheless, as she wrote in her report on the bill, “The Committee wishes to insure a fair and workable asylum policy which is consistent with this country’s tradition of welcoming the oppressed of other nations and with our obligations under international law.”

Almost immediately after the Refugee Act went into effect in April 1980, Fidel Castro allowed thousands of Cubans to sail to the United States. As the Carter administration devised a special program to deal with this influx, the development of general asylum procedures was put off (with only interim regulations published). Beginning in 1981, the Reagan administration embraced deterrence through interdiction, detention and externalization as the path to deal with asylum seekers, shirking the intention of Holtzman and Congress, which had ensured the right to seek asylum in the 1980 Act.

These strategies remain the norm to this day. As Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote in 1981, the Act would be an effective instrument only if U.S. leaders used it wisely, to serve the country’s humanitarian traditions. The U.S. government has not paid adequate attention or resources to ensure fair and efficient adjudication of asylum claims. Indeed, Congress itself appropriates no money to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for asylum adjudication and has allowed the immigration courts to be weaponized against asylum seekers. Over the last three years, the Trump administration has engaged in an all-out assault on asylum that already has restricted the ability of many immigrants to qualify for refuge and sent over 60,000 people to wait in Mexico, where they are forced to live in dangerous, inhumane conditions in open-air encampments and shelters.

. . . .

***********************************

Read the rest of the article at the link.

This article inspires me to do a “reprise” of remarks I made at the Federal Bar Association’s Annual Immigration Conference in Austin, Texas, in May 2018. I describe the post-1980 history of asylum in the Immigration Courts and how the Obama Administration’s exceptionally poor and often tone-deaf handling of asylum issues at EOIR, and particularly their ill-advised response to the so-called “Southern Border Crisis” in 2014, seriously deteriorated due process and the functioning of the Immigration Courts while “paving the way” for even more blatantly scofflaw actions by the Trump regime.

JUSTICE BETRAYED: THE INTENTIONAL MISTREATMENT OF CENTRAL AMERICAN ASYLUM APPLICANTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

By

Paul Wickham Schmidt

U.S. Immigration Judge (Retired)

Federal Bar Association Immigration Conference

Austin, Texas

May 17, 2019

Hi, I’m Paul Schmidt, moderator of this panel. So, I have something useful to do while my wonderful colleagues do all the “heavy lifting,” please submit all questions to me in writing. And remember, free beer for everyone at the Bullock Texas State Museum after this panel!

Welcome to the front lines of the battle for our legal system, and ultimately for the future of our constitutional republic. Because, make no mistake, once this Administration, its nativist supporters, and enablers succeed in eradicating the rights and humanity of Central American asylum seekers, all their other “enemies” — Hispanics, gays, African Americans, the poor, women, liberals, lawyers, journalists, civil servants, Democrats — will be in line for “Dred Scottification” — becoming “non-persons” under our Constitution. If you don’t know what the “Insurrection Act” is or “Operation Wetback” was, you should “tune in” to today’s edition of my blog immigrationcourtside.com and take a look into the future of America under our current leaders’ dark and disgraceful vision.

Before I introduce the “Dream Team” sitting to my right, a bit of asylum history.

In 1987, the Supreme Court established in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca that a well founded fear of persecution for asylum was to be interpreted generously in favor of asylum applicants. So generously, in fact, that someone with only a 10% chance of persecution qualifies.

Shortly thereafter, the BIA followed suit with Matter of Mogharrabi, holding that asylum should be granted even in cases where persecution was significantly less than probable. To illustrate, the BIA granted asylum to an Iranian who suffered threats at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, DC. Imagine what would happen to a similar case under today’s regime!

In the 1990s, the “Legacy INS” enacted regulations establishing that those who had suffered “past persecution” would be presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution, unless the Government could show materially changed circumstances or a reasonably available internal relocation alternative that would eliminate that well-founded fear. In my experience as a judge, that was a burden that the Government seldom could meet.

But the regulations went further and said that even where the presumption of a well founded fear had been rebutted, asylum could still be granted because of “egregious past persecution” or “other serious harm.”

In 1996, the BIA decided the landmark case of Matter of Kasinga, recognizing that abuses directed at women by a male dominated society, such as “female genital mutilation’ (“FGM”), could be a basis for granting asylum based on a “particular social group.” Some of us, including my good friend and colleague Judge Lory Rosenberg, staked our careers on extending that much-need protection to women who had suffered domestic violence. Although it took an unnecessarily long time, that protection eventually was realized in the 2014 precedent Matter of A-R-C-G-, long after our “forced departure” from the BIA.

And, as might be expected, over the years the asylum grant rate in Immigration Court rose steadily, from a measly 11% in the early 1980s, when EOIR was created, to 56% in 2012, in an apparent long overdue fulfillment of the generous legal promise of Cardoza-Fonseca. Added to those receiving withholding of removal and/or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), approximately two-thirds of asylum applicants were receiving well-deserved, often life-saving legal protection in Immigration Court.

Indeed, by that time, asylum grant rates in some of the more due-process oriented courts with asylum expertise like New York and Arlington exceeded 70%, and could have been models for the future. In other words, after a quarter of a century of struggles, the generous promise of Cardoza-Fonseca was finally on the way to being fulfilled. Similarly, the vision of the Immigration Courts as “through teamwork and innovation being the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all” was at least coming into focus, even if not a reality in some Immigration Courts that continued to treat asylum applicants with hostility.

And, that doesn’t count those offered prosecutorial discretion or “PD” by the DHS counsel. Sometimes, this was a humanitarian act to save those who were in danger if returned but didn’t squarely fit the somewhat convoluted “refugee” definition as interpreted by the BIA. Other times, it appeared to be a strategic move by DHS to head off possible precedents granting asylum in “close cases” or in “emerging circumstances.”

In 2014, there was a so-called “surge” in asylum applicants, mostly scared women, children, and families from the Northern Triangle of Central America seeking protection from worsening conditions involving gangs, cartels, and corrupt governments.There was a well-established record of femicide and other widespread and largely unmitigated gender-based violence directed against women and gays, sometimes by the Northern Triangle governments and their agents, other times by gangs and cartels operating with the knowledge and acquiescence of the governments concerned.

Also, given the breakdown of governmental authority and massive corruption, gangs and cartels assumed quasi-governmental status, controlling territories, negotiating “treaties,” exacting involuntary “taxes,” and severely punishing those who publicly opposed their political policies by refusing to join, declining to pay, or attempting to report them to authorities. Indeed, MS-13 eventually became the largest employer in El Salvador. Sometimes, whole family groups, occupational groups, or villages were targeted for their public acts of resistance.

Not surprisingly in this context, the vast majority of those who arrived during the so-called “surge” passed “credible fear” screening by the DHS and were referred to the Immigration Courts, or in the case of “unaccompanied minors,” to the Asylum Offices, to pursue their asylum claims.

The practical legal solution to this humanitarian flow was obvious — help folks find lawyers to assist in documenting and presenting their cases, screen out the non-meritorious claims and those who had prior gang or criminal associations, and grant the rest asylum. Even those not qualifying for asylum because of the arcane “nexus” requirements appeared to fit squarely within the CAT protection based on likelihood of torture with government acquiescence upon return to the Northern Triangle. Some decent BIA precedents, a robust refugee program in the Northern Triangle, along with continued efforts to improve the conditions there would have “sealed the deal.” In other words, the Obama Administration had all of the legal tools necessary to deal effectively and humanely with the misnamed “surge” as what it really was — a humanitarian situation and an opportunity for our country to show human rights leadership!

But, then things took a strange and ominous turn. After years of setting records for deportations and removals, and being disingenuously called “soft on enforcement” by the GOP, the Obama Administration began believing the GOP myths that they were wimps. They panicked! Their collective “manhood” depended on showing that they could quickly return refugees to the Northern Triangle to “deter” others from coming. Thus began the “weaponization” of our Immigration Court system that has continued unabated until today.

They began imprisoning families and children in horrible conditions and establishing so-called “courts” in those often for profit prisons in obscure locations where attorneys generally were not readily available. They absurdly claimed that everyone should be held without bond because as a group they were a “national security risk.” They argued in favor of indefinite detention without bond and making children and toddlers “represent themselves” in Immigration Court.

The Attorney General also sent strong messages to EOIR that hurrying folks through the system by “prioritizing” them, denying their claims, “stuffing” their appeals, and returning them to the Northern Triangle with a mere veneer of due process was an essential part of the Administration’s “get tough” enforcement program. EOIR was there to “send a message” to those who might be considering fleeing for their lives — don’t come, you won’t get in, no matter how strong your claim might be.

They took judges off of their established dockets and sent them to the Southern Border to expeditiously remove folks before they could get legal help. They insisted on jamming unprepared cases of recently arrived juveniles and “adults with children” in front of previously docketed cases, thereby generating total chaos and huge backlogs through what is known as “aimless docket reshuffling” (“ADR”).

Hurry up scheduling and ADR also resulted in more “in absentia” orders because of carelessly prepared and often inadequate or wrongly addressed “notices” sent out by overwhelmed DHS and EOIR court staff. Sometimes DHS could remove those with in absentia orders before they got a chance to reopen their cases. Other times, folks didn’t even realize a removal order had been entered until they were on their way back.

They empowered judges with unusually high asylum denial rates. By a ratio of nine to one they hired new judges from prosecutorial backgrounds, rather than from the large body of qualified candidates with experience in representing asylum applicants who might actually have been capable of working within the system to fairly and efficiently recognize meritorious cases, promote fair access to pro bono counsel, and insure that doubtful cases or those needing more attention did not get “lost” in the artificial backlogs being created in an absurdly mismanaged system. In other words, due process took a back seat to “expedience” and fulfilling inappropriate Administration enforcement goals.

Asylum grant rates began to drop, even as conditions on the ground for refugees worldwide continued to deteriorate. Predictably, however, detention, denial, inhumane treatment, harsh rhetoric, and unfair removals failed to stop refugees from fleeing the Northern Triangle.

But, just when many of us thought things couldn’t get worse, they did. The Trump Administration arrived on the scene. They put lifelong White Nationalist xenophobe nativists Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller in charge of eradicating the asylum process. Sessions decided that even artificially suppressed asylum grant rates weren’t providing enough deterrence; asylum seekers were still winning too many cases. So he did away with A-R-C-G- and made it harder for Immigration Judges to control their dockets.

He tried to blame asylum seekers and their largely pro bono attorneys, whom he called “dirty lawyers,” for having created a population of 11 million undocumented individuals in the U.S. He promoted bogus claims and false narratives about immigrants and crime. Perhaps most disgustingly, he was the “mastermind” behind the policy of “child separation” which inflicted lifetime damage upon the most vulnerable and has resulted in some children still not being reunited with their families.

He urged “judges” to summarily deny asylum claims of women based on domestic violence or because of fear of persecution by gangs. He blamed the judges for the backlogs he was dramatically increasing with more ADR and told them to meet new quotas for churning out final orders or be fired. He made it clear that denials of asylum, not grants, were to be the “new norm” for final orders.

His sycophantic successor, Bill Barr, an immigration hard-liner, immediately picked up the thread by eliminating bond for most individuals who had passed credible fear. Under Barr, the EOIR has boldly and publicly abandoned any semblance of due process, fairness, or unbiased decision making in favor of becoming an Administration anti-asylum propaganda factory. Just last week they put out a “bogus fact sheet” of lies about the asylum process and the dedicated lawyers trying to help asylum seekers. The gist was that the public should believe that almost all asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle are mala fide and that getting them attorneys and explaining their rights are a waste of time and money.

In the meantime, the Administration has refused to promptly process asylum applicants at ports of entry; made those who have passed credible fear “wait in Mexico” in dangerous and sometimes life-threatening conditions; unsuccessfully tried to suspend the law allowing those who enter the U.S. between ports of entry to apply for asylum; expanded the “New American Gulag” with tent cities and more inhumane prisons — dehumanizingly referred to as “beds” as if they existed without reference to those humans confined to them;illegally reprogrammed money that could have gone for additional humanitarian assistance to a stupid and unnecessary “wall;” and threatened to “dump” asylum seekers to “punish” so-called “sanctuary cities.” Perhaps most outrageously, in violation of clear statutory mandates, they have replaced trained Asylum Officers in the “credible fear” process with totally unqualified Border Patrol Agents whose job is to make the system “adversarial” and to insure that fewer individuals pass “credible fear.”

The Administration says the fact that the “credible fear” pass rate is much higher than the asylum grant rate is evidence that the system is being “gamed.” That’s nativist BS! The, reality is just the opposite: that so many of those who pass credible fear are eventually rejected by Immigration Judges shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the Immigration Court system. Under pressure to produce and with too many biased, untrained, and otherwise unqualified “judges,” many claims that should be granted are being wrongfully denied.

Today, the Immigration Courts have become an openly hostile environment for asylum seekers and their representatives. Sadly, the Article III Courts aren’t much better, having largely “swallowed the whistle” on a system that every day blatantly mocks due process, the rule of law, and fair and unbiased treatment of asylum seekers. Many Article IIIs continue to “defer” to decisions produced not by “expert tribunals,” but by a fraudulent court system that has replaced due process with expediency and enforcement.

But, all is not lost. Even in this toxic environment, there are pockets of judges at both the administrative and Article III level who still care about their oaths of office and are continuing to grant asylum to battered women and other refugees from the Northern Triangle. Indeed, I have been told that more than 60 gender-based cases from Northern Triangle countries have beengranted by Immigration Judges across the country even after Sessions’s blatant attempt to snuff out protection for battered women in Matter of A-B-. Along with dependent family members, that means hundreds of human lives of refugees saved, even in the current age.

Also significantly, by continuing to insist that asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle be treated fairly in accordance with due process and the applicable laws, we are making a record of the current legal and constitutional travesty for future generations. We are building a case for an independent Article I Immigration Court, for resisting nativist calls for further legislative restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers, and for eventually holding the modern day “Jim Crows” who have abused the rule of law and human values, at all levels of our system, accountable, before the “court of history” if nothing else!

Eventually, we will return to the evolving protection of asylum seekers in the pre-2014 era and eradicate the damage to our fundamental values and the rule of law being done by this Administration’s nativist, White Nationalist policies.That’s what the “New Due Process Army” is all about.

PWS

O3-24-20

IN MEMORIAM: JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS (1920-2019), AMERICAN HERO WHO LEAVES A LEGACY OF KINDNESS & COMMON SENSE — Authored One Of The Greatest Supreme Court Decisions, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca!

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/07/16/justice-john-paul-stevens-who-left-us-a-better-nation-dies-at-99/

Marcia Coyle writes in the National Law Journal:

Justice John Paul Stevens, whose decisions during almost 35 years on the U.S. Supreme Court triggered a revolution in criminal sentencing and curbed government overreach in the war on terror, died on Tuesday evening at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He was 99.

Stevens died of complications following a stroke that he suffered on July 15, according to a statement from the Supreme Court’s public information office. His daughters were by his side.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said of Stevens:

“On behalf of the court and retired Justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice John Paul Stevens has passed away. A son of the Midwest heartland and a veteran of World War II, Justice Stevens devoted his long life to public service, including 35 years on the Supreme Court. He brought to our bench an inimitable blend of kindness, humility, wisdom, and independence. His unrelenting commitment to justice has left us a better nation. We extend our deepest condolences to his children Elizabeth and Susan, and to his extended family.”

Shortly after retiring from the high court in June 2010, Stevens, described by one legal scholar as “one of the most articulate, disciplined and accomplished” justices in U.S. history, “made clear that he still had a “lot to say.”

Over the next nearly 10 years, the indefatigable nonagenarian wrote three books and gave numerous speeches around the country in which he critiqued past and current Supreme Court decisions.

In “Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir,” he chronicled his experiences with chief justices from his time as a Supreme Court clerk in 1947 until his retirement as an associate justice. His favorite chief, he later said, was the current one—Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.

And in “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he proposed ways to change the founding document because “rules crafted by a slim majority of the members of the Supreme Court have had such a profound and unfortunate impact on our basic law that resort to the process of amendment is warranted.”

His proposed amendments would, among other tasks, hasten the demise of the death penalty—a punishment he supported early in his career but later found costly and ineffective; prohibit partisan gerrymanders; return the Second Amendment to its original meaning, in his view, as a collective militia right, not an individual right; and reverse the deregulation of money in elections achieved most prominently by the high court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

His final book was: “The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years.”

An Unlikely “Revolutionary”

With his trademark bow-tie, mild manner and unfailingly polite questions on the bench, Stevens was an unlikely “revolutionary” in any area of the law.

Born April 20, 1920, in Chicago, Stevens was the youngest of four boys in a wealthy family headed by his father, Ernest Stevens. In 1927, his father built the Stevens Hotel in Chicago, now the Hilton Chicago, which at the time was one of the largest and finest hotels in the world.

A “very happy childhood,” according to Stevens, was disrupted when in 1934 the hotel went bankrupt and Stevens’ father, grandfather and uncle were indicted for diverting funds from the life insurance company that his grandfather had founded in order to make bond payments on the hotel. His father was convicted of embezzling $1.3 million. But, in that same year, the state Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding there was “not a scintilla” of evidence of any fraud.

The experience had a profound effect on him, Stevens later said. Some legal scholars trace to that experience the deep sense of fairness and commitment to due process in the criminal justice system that marked his judicial career.

Appellate Practice in Federal and State CourtsBOOK

Guide to the appellate process for both practitioners and students. From preserving issues for appeal to preparing winning motions, skilled appellate lawyers provide insights on key considerations.

Get More Information

After graduating from the University of Chicago, Stevens enlisted as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy, specializing in cryptology. His enlistment date was Dec. 6, 1941—the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Following his discharge in 1945, he enrolled in Northwestern University School of Law and graduated in two years after matriculating through regular and summer sessions.

Shortly before graduating, Stevens and his close friend, Art Seder, were informed by the dean of a possible clerkship with Justice Wiley Rutledge. The dean told the two men to decide who should be recommended. Stevens and Seder flipped a coin—and Stevens won.

Stevens’ clerkship with Rutledge was one of two factors that contributed to Stevens’ subsequent importance in the war on terror cases, Craig Green of Temple University School of Law told The National Law Journal in 2010. Stevens helped Rutledge write the dissent in Ahrens v. Clark in which Rutledge roundly criticized the majority for denying due process to German Americans detained during World War II.

“Rutledge was one of the crucial justices in the last round of really important war power decisions in World War II,” explained Green. “He was very strong on civil liberties. Those issues had a lot more prominence for Stevens than they might have had for another person.”

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the 2004 case involving U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, who was detained as an “unlawful combatant,” Stevens set out the foundation for his later opinions in a Rutledge-like dissent chastising his colleagues for dismissing Padilla’s case on jurisdictional grounds.

“At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society,” Stevens wrote. “Even more important than the method of selecting the people’s rulers and their successors is the character of the constraints imposed on the Executive by the rule of law. Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber.

After his high court clerkship ended, Stevens went into private practice in Chicago and served briefly on the Republican staff of the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C.

In 1969, he became counsel to a committee assigned to investigate corruption in the Illinois Supreme Court. The result of that work was the prosecution of two state justices for bribery and exposure of corruption throughout the judicial system. His efforts caught the attention of Sen. Charles Percy, R-Illinois, who recommended him for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. President Richard Nixon nominated Stevens in 1970 and he was confirmed that year.

Stevens served five years on the appellate court where he was known as a moderate conservative judge. In 1975, President Gerald Ford nominated him to fill the Supreme Court seat previously held by Justice William Douglas. He was unanimously confirmed just 19 days later.

From Maverick to Court Leader

During his early years on the high court, Stevens was something of a maverick, often writing lone concurrences or dissents on seemingly tangential issues. But with the departure of Justice Harry Blackmun and liberal lion Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, Stevens assumed a new role as leader of the court’s left wing and the senior associate justice. He always considered himself a conservative, even when labeled the leader of the court’s “liberal block.” He often said he never moved left; it was the court that had moved increasingly to the right.

His position as the court’s senior associate justice empowered him to assign majority opinions when he was in the majority and the chief justice was in dissent. When Stevens was in dissent, he also could assign the main dissent to himself or a colleague.

Stevens used the assignment power deftly, forging majorities in a number of significant cases, often with the helpful vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy. One of the areas in which he crafted landmark rulings was fallout from the war on terror.

“On terrorism, he has been not just the leading light on the left, but the master strategist,” said Stephen Vladeck of American University Washington College of Law at Stevens’ retirement in 2010. “For the most part, as Justice Stevens has gone, so has gone the court.”

Besides the Padilla opinion, Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Rasul v. Bush (2004) holding that federal courts have habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. And, he led the majority in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), holding that military commissions set up by the Bush Administration exceeded the president’s authority and their structure and procedures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

Guantanamo Bay detention center.

Stevens did not write the majority opinion in perhaps the most important of the terrorism cases—Boumediene v. Bush in 2008—but he did assign the majority opinion to Kennedy. In that case, the Court held that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 operated as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and reiterated that Guantanamo Bay detainees had access to federal habeas corpus.

Although Boumediene is considered the more important decision legally of the three by many scholars, Stevens’ opinions in Rasul and Hamdan have been more important politically, according to Vladeck and others. They prompted Congress to act and started a national debate. With all three decisions, the high court moved forward incrementally in its supervision of executive and congressional action in this new type of war.

Enforcing Due Process

In 2000, Stevens wrote the majority opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey and triggered a small earthquake in criminal sentencing procedures. Apprendi held that due process required that any fact increasing the penalty for a crime above the prescribed statutory maximum must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. A judge no longer could impose a higher sentence after finding the requisite facts; it had to be the jury.

Five years later in U.S. v. Booker, Stevens led the majority in dismantling the mandatory character of federal sentencing guidelines. In the process, he put together an unusual coalition, finding key support from Justices Antonin Scalia, who sought to reinvigorate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and Clarence Thomas.

The animating principle in both decisions was due process, or fairness, in the criminal justice system. It also animated Stevens’ rulings in two other keys areas of criminal law which are major parts of his legacy—the death penalty and right to counsel.

Throughout his career on the court, Stevens strived to bring “more law” to capital punishment. James Liebman of Columbia Law School and Lawrence Marshall of Stanford Law school, both former Stevens clerks, have described the justice’s approach to the death penalty as “less is better.” In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988) and Atkins v. Virginia (2002), he wrote majority opinions narrowing the eligibility for the penalty by striking down capital punishment for those under age 15 and for mentally retarded persons, respectively. He also is credited with being particularly influential in Roper v. Simmons (2005), written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, eliminating the death penalty for persons under 18.

In the court’s first lethal injection challenge, Baze v. Reese (2008), he wrote a concurring opinion concluding that the death penalty “with such negligible returns to the state” is unconstitutional.

“I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty represents ‘the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes,” he wrote.

Justices Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell Jr., both supportive like Stevens of the death penalty in 1976 when the high court reinstated capital punishment, also ultimately changed their view.

Stevens often held criminal defense lawyers to a higher standard of competency than has the court’s conservative majority in recent years. One of his last victories in this area has had major ramifications. In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), he led the majority in holding that defense counsel has an affirmative duty to inform a client that a plea may carry a risk of deportation.

Stevens in Dissent

Two of Stevens’ most important dissents came near the end of his tenure in two of the Roberts court’s most controversial cases.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, a 5-4 majority, with Stevens dissenting, held that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm—unconnected with service in a militia– and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes.

In his lengthy dissent, Stevens fought with the majority’s author, Scalia, on the original meaning of the amendment’s text, its history and the importance of a 70-year-old precedent holding that the right guaranteed was a collective one, not an individual one.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

So certain that his view was correct, Stevens later told this reporter, he had circulated his draft dissent before the draft majority opinion went to the other justices.

“It was unusual,” he said. “We thought if anybody made a fair and thorough analysis of the history, that we would win. That’s why we put it out there.”

But he didn’t win. When asked what a justice should do if there are good arguments on both sides, he said, “History is important but as long as there are reasonable arguments on both sides, you look at other factors involved in the case. In this particular case, you’re really asking the question who should make the policy decisions of what gun control rules we should have. It seems to me this is the quintessential example of the policy question the elected representatives of the people should decide. That to me is a terribly important tie-breaker. And then you have stare decisis—when a rule is that well-settled and hasn’t caused any unfair results, normally you let the rule stand.”

The second major dissent came just six months before he retired. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), a 5-4 court struck down federal limits on independent campaign expenditures by corporations because they violated the First Amendment speech rights of corporations.

Stevens wrote that corporations are not people and money, which finances speech, is not “speech.” He later explained his views to this writer, saying, “An election is a form of debate. Where you have a debate, you make rules that equalize the two sides. When we have a debate in our court, each side gets 30 minutes and because one of them has a $100 million, they don’t get any extra time.”

At the end of his lengthy dissent, he wrote: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

On the day the decision was issued, Stevens read a summary of his dissent from the bench and stumbled in its delivery. He later revealed that, despite being cleared of any medical problem by his doctor, he decided that day to retire.

Stevens’ wife of 35 years, Maryan, died on Aug. 7, 2015. He is survived by his children, Elizabeth Jane Sesemann (Craig) and Susan Roberta Mullen (Kevin), nine grandchildren: Kathryn, Christine, Edward, Susan, Lauren, John, Madison, Hannah and Haley, and 13 great-grandchildren. His first wife, Elizabeth Jane, his second wife, Maryan Mulholland, his son, John Joseph, and his daughter, Kathryn, preceded him in death.

Funeral plans will be released when available, according to the Supreme Court.

*****************************************

One of Justice Stevens’s greatest contributions was his opinion in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987). That case established the generous “well-founded fear” standard for asylum eligibility under the Refugee Act of 1980. Justice Stevens rejected the Government’s position that a higher “clear probability,” in other words “more likely than not,” standard applied.

In parsing the history and intent behind the Act’s “refugee” definition, which was taken from the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees, Justice Stevens cited extensively from the UNHCR’s U.N. Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. His opinion also famously stated “There is simply no room in the United Nations’ definition for concluding that because an applicant has only a 10% chance of being shot, tortured, or otherwise persecuted that he or she has no ‘well-founded fear’ of the event happening.” 480 U.S. 439.

Justice Stevens closed by stating:

Our analysis of the plain language of the Act, its symmetry with the United Nations Protocol, and its legislative history, lead inexorably to the conclusion that to show a “well-founded fear of persecution,” an alien need not prove that it is more likely than not that he or she will be persecuted in his or her home country. We find these ordinary canons of statutory construction compelling, even without regard to the longstanding principle of construing any lingering ambiguities in deportation statutes in favor of the alien. See INS v. Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 225 (1966); Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120, 128 (1964); Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U.S. 6, 10 (1948).

Deportation is always a harsh measure; it is all the more replete with danger when the alien makes a claim that he or she will be subject to death or persecution if forced to return to his or her home country. In enacting the Refugee Act of 1980 Congress sought to “give the United States sufficient flexibility to respond to situations involving political or religious dissidents and detainees throughout the world.” H. R. Rep., at 9. Our holding today increases that flexibility by rejecting the Government’s contention that the Attorney General may not even consider granting asylum to one who [480 U.S. 421, 450] fails to satisfy the strict 243(h) standard. Whether or not a “refugee” is eventually granted asylum is a matter which Congress has left for the Attorney General to decide. But it is clear that Congress did not intend to restrict eligibility for that relief to those who could prove that it is more likely than not that they will be persecuted if deported.

480 U.S. 449-50.

I have a particular recollection of the difference made by Justice Stevens’s opinion in Cardoza-Fonseca because I worked on that case. At that time, I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS.” I assisted the Solicitor General’s Office in developing the INS’s, ultimately losing, position that the Act required a showing that persecution was “more likely than not.”

I was present in Court on October 7, 1986 for the oral argument. Ms. Cardoza-Fonseca was represented by a brilliant young lawyer from San Francisco named Dana Marks Keener, who won the day for her client. It was Dana’s first, and as far as I know only, argument before the Court.

Hon. Diana Leigh Marks — Hon. Dana Leigh Marks
U.S. Immigration Judge
San Francisco Immigration Court
Past President, National Association of Immigration Judges

By contrast, her opposing counsel that day, Deputy Solicitor General Larry Wallace, had 157 oral arguments before the Court. According to Wikipedia, Wallace “holds the record for most cases argued before the Supreme Court by any attorney, public or private, in the twentieth century.”

Shortly thereafter, Dana (now known as Dana Leigh Marks) was appointed a U.S. Immigration Judge in San Francisco. We later became great friends and colleagues.

Dana went on to become a President of the National Association of Immigration Judges (“NAIJ”). Dana is one of America’s leading proponents of judicial independence for U.S. Immigration Judges and the establishment of an independent Article I U.S. Immigration Court. She has made countless appearances on television and radio and is often quoted in major media. I often refer to Dana as one of the “Founding Mothers” of U.S. asylum law.

When I first read Justice Stevens’s opinion, I realized he was right, and we had been wrong. Thereafter, I made it a point to be faithful to the “10% test” and the generous interpretation of “well-founded fear” established by Cardoza-Fonseca and later incorporated by the BIA in Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 437 (BIA 1987).

When I was appointed Chairman of the BIA by then Attorney General Janet Reno in 1995, I was taken aback to discover that some of my colleagues appeared to be giving only “lip service” to Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi, while actually applying what seemed to me the discredited “more likely than not” standard to asylum cases. That lead to lots of dissenting opinions and my eventually being “exiled” to the Arlington Immigration Court by Attorney General John Ashcroft. During my 13 years on the bench in Arlington, I always tried my best to remain faithful to Cardoza-Fonseca and Mogharrabi and to “bring them to life” in my courtroom and in my teaching, both in and out of court.

As a result of Dana’s arguments and Justice Stevens’s opinion in Cardozo-Fonseca, the situation for U.S. asylum seekers improved dramatically over the next three decades. On the eve of Cardoza-Fonseca, only about 10% of asylum applicants were successful in Immigration Court. By 2012, over 50% were succeeding in their claims. Thus, it seemed that the Justice Stevens’s vision and the “generous promise of Cardoza-Fonseca” were on the verge of finally being fulfilled.

Alas, it was not to happen. Starting with the Obama Administration’s misguided (and ineffective) “tough guy” response to a largely exaggerated “border surge” of 2014, and continuing with the Trump Administration’s all out White Nationalist assault on refugee and asylum law and Due Process generally, the DOJ has used various devices to force down the asylum grant rate everywhere, including Immigration Court. Now, only about one-third of applications are being granted, notwithstanding that conditions in most of the “sending countries” for refugees and asylum seekers have actually gotten measurably worse since 2012.

As shown by their scofflaw actions this week, the Trump Administration intends to effectively repeal the Refugee Act of 1980 and withdraw from the Convention by bogus regulations and administrative fiat. I believe that Justice Stevens would be among those of us finding that situation deplorable.

However, like Justice Stevens, there are many of us out here still carrying on the tradition of human kindness, generosity, common sense, and the “upward arc of the law.” Through the efforts of the “New Due Process Army” and others who will follow in their footsteps, I believe that justice and human dignity will eventually triumph and that Justice Stevens’s wise and inspiring words in Cardoza-Fonseca will once again be given life and become the hallmark of U.S. asylum adjudication and the recognition of human rights in the United States.

Thanks again, Justice Stevens, for a life well-lived and your outstanding contributions to American law and to humanity.

PWS

07-18-19

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Dan Kowalski reports for LexisNexis Immigration Community:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Julie Watson reports for AP:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

EOIR is looking for “many judges in many locations:”

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Two items from Professor Austin Kocher on Substack:

And, this from Lauren Iosue, Georgetown Law L-3 on LinkedIn.

🇺🇸Due Process Forever,

Related posts:

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

At a minimum Garland must:

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

🇺🇸⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

“Refugee women get ‘special treatment’ in accordance with the ‘traditional values’ applied to their cases in Judge Garland’s Immigration Courts!”

It’s a “win-win-win” that you no longer can afford to ignore, Your Honor!

🇺🇸⚖️🗽🧑🏽‍⚖️Due Process Forever!

Related posts:

Due Process Forever! “BIA Lite,” Never!

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: